<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_23_1651218</id>
	<title>Telcos Want Big Subsidies, Not Line-Sharing</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1258996920000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>It seems that a recent <a href="http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2009/11/big-telcos-slam-broadband-open-access-broadband-report.ars?utm\_source=rss&amp;utm\_medium=rss&amp;utm\_campaign=rss">survey of global broadband practices</a> by Harvard's Berkman Center at the behest of the FCC has stirred the telecommunications hornet's nest.  Both AT&amp;T and Verizon are up in arms about some of the conclusions (except the ones that suggest offering large direct public subsidies).  <i>"Harvard's Berkman Center study of global broadband practices, produced at the FCC's request, is an 'embarrassingly slanted econometric analysis that violates professional statistical standards and is insufficiently reliable to provide meaningful guidance,' declares AT&amp;T. The study does nothing but promote the lead author's 'own extreme views,' warns a response from Verizon Wireless. Most importantly, it 'should not be relied upon by the FCC in formulating a National Broadband Plan,' concludes the United States Telecom Association.  Reviewing the slew of criticisms, Berkman's blog wryly notes that the report seems to have been 'a mini stimulus act for telecommunications lawyers and consultants.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems that a recent survey of global broadband practices by Harvard 's Berkman Center at the behest of the FCC has stirred the telecommunications hornet 's nest .
Both AT&amp;T and Verizon are up in arms about some of the conclusions ( except the ones that suggest offering large direct public subsidies ) .
" Harvard 's Berkman Center study of global broadband practices , produced at the FCC 's request , is an 'embarrassingly slanted econometric analysis that violates professional statistical standards and is insufficiently reliable to provide meaningful guidance, ' declares AT&amp;T .
The study does nothing but promote the lead author 's 'own extreme views, ' warns a response from Verizon Wireless .
Most importantly , it 'should not be relied upon by the FCC in formulating a National Broadband Plan, ' concludes the United States Telecom Association .
Reviewing the slew of criticisms , Berkman 's blog wryly notes that the report seems to have been 'a mini stimulus act for telecommunications lawyers and consultants .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems that a recent survey of global broadband practices by Harvard's Berkman Center at the behest of the FCC has stirred the telecommunications hornet's nest.
Both AT&amp;T and Verizon are up in arms about some of the conclusions (except the ones that suggest offering large direct public subsidies).
"Harvard's Berkman Center study of global broadband practices, produced at the FCC's request, is an 'embarrassingly slanted econometric analysis that violates professional statistical standards and is insufficiently reliable to provide meaningful guidance,' declares AT&amp;T.
The study does nothing but promote the lead author's 'own extreme views,' warns a response from Verizon Wireless.
Most importantly, it 'should not be relied upon by the FCC in formulating a National Broadband Plan,' concludes the United States Telecom Association.
Reviewing the slew of criticisms, Berkman's blog wryly notes that the report seems to have been 'a mini stimulus act for telecommunications lawyers and consultants.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204458</id>
	<title>For those of you interested..</title>
	<author>hiimhoit</author>
	<datestamp>1259005080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is the bill the telco's are strongly opposed to, the one we need to pass:

<br> <a href="http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3458/show" title="opencongress.org" rel="nofollow">h3458</a> [opencongress.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the bill the telco 's are strongly opposed to , the one we need to pass : h3458 [ opencongress.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the bill the telco's are strongly opposed to, the one we need to pass:

 h3458 [opencongress.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30207164</id>
	<title>Re:Fascism, DUH</title>
	<author>Djupblue</author>
	<datestamp>1258975740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sweden doesn't have any kind of oil assets. US does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sweden does n't have any kind of oil assets .
US does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sweden doesn't have any kind of oil assets.
US does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30206190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204580</id>
	<title>Just make the lines government controlled already</title>
	<author>MBGMorden</author>
	<datestamp>1259005740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've got a wonderful idea - instead of giving telco's tons of cash to build infrastructure, why doesn't the government build the infrastructure itself (much like the highway system) and then simply lease bandwidth on those lines at a set rate to any company who wants it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got a wonderful idea - instead of giving telco 's tons of cash to build infrastructure , why does n't the government build the infrastructure itself ( much like the highway system ) and then simply lease bandwidth on those lines at a set rate to any company who wants it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got a wonderful idea - instead of giving telco's tons of cash to build infrastructure, why doesn't the government build the infrastructure itself (much like the highway system) and then simply lease bandwidth on those lines at a set rate to any company who wants it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204434</id>
	<title>They've already got hundreds of billions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259005020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in subsidies.</p><p>Why the fuck after no major infrastructure upgrade and no national fibre wiring upgrade are they asking for more?</p><p>Sickening.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in subsidies.Why the fuck after no major infrastructure upgrade and no national fibre wiring upgrade are they asking for more ? Sickening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in subsidies.Why the fuck after no major infrastructure upgrade and no national fibre wiring upgrade are they asking for more?Sickening.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204282</id>
	<title>Actually, I agree mostly with the telco</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1259004180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The real problem is the system is gamed heavily in their favor. We should make ALL monopoly connections be discontinued. Here in Denver region, Colorado, QWest has the monopoly on twisted pair, and Comcast has the monopoly on cable/fiber. If we remove these monopolies and regulations, it will allow real competition to come in.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real problem is the system is gamed heavily in their favor .
We should make ALL monopoly connections be discontinued .
Here in Denver region , Colorado , QWest has the monopoly on twisted pair , and Comcast has the monopoly on cable/fiber .
If we remove these monopolies and regulations , it will allow real competition to come in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real problem is the system is gamed heavily in their favor.
We should make ALL monopoly connections be discontinued.
Here in Denver region, Colorado, QWest has the monopoly on twisted pair, and Comcast has the monopoly on cable/fiber.
If we remove these monopolies and regulations, it will allow real competition to come in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204196</id>
	<title>Re:Fascism, DUH</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1259003640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If we've always been a fascist nation, and we're the sole remaining superpower, the whole welfare-welfare state thing has a pretty good track record, huh?</i></p><p>Speaking as a member of a welfare state that didn't have a massive economic meltdown and continues to tick along while the US flounders, I'd say yeah, it does have a pretty good track record:</p><p>Hint:  An idea isn't bad just because the American government is too fundamentally fucked up to implement it properly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we 've always been a fascist nation , and we 're the sole remaining superpower , the whole welfare-welfare state thing has a pretty good track record , huh ? Speaking as a member of a welfare state that did n't have a massive economic meltdown and continues to tick along while the US flounders , I 'd say yeah , it does have a pretty good track record : Hint : An idea is n't bad just because the American government is too fundamentally fucked up to implement it properly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we've always been a fascist nation, and we're the sole remaining superpower, the whole welfare-welfare state thing has a pretty good track record, huh?Speaking as a member of a welfare state that didn't have a massive economic meltdown and continues to tick along while the US flounders, I'd say yeah, it does have a pretty good track record:Hint:  An idea isn't bad just because the American government is too fundamentally fucked up to implement it properly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205362</id>
	<title>Re:More competition needed</title>
	<author>mdarksbane</author>
	<datestamp>1258967580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think about my municipal water and sewage service all the time. It's actually a real concern that I might get them.</p><p>You see, I live in the country, and paid quite a bit when I bought my house to put in a new septic system that should last me 30-50 years. However, the nearest city recently (against the wishes of anyone nearby) decided to put in a new water treatment plant a few miles down the road. Not close enough to really bother me, thankfully, but close enough that they might want to run lines to my house.</p><p>That's great, right? Government at work, getting better sewage system out to the country.</p><p>If the county runs sewer in front of your house, you are *required* to pay to be attached. That means thousands to tens of thousands of dollars of direct costs that you are required to pay, regardless of whether your current system still has 30 years of life on it, and for no real direct benefit to you.</p><p>Government-run utilities can do good things, provide good services, all that. But it's still government, and there's still a "must" attached to it that can really screw you over if you're caught on the wrong end of their plans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think about my municipal water and sewage service all the time .
It 's actually a real concern that I might get them.You see , I live in the country , and paid quite a bit when I bought my house to put in a new septic system that should last me 30-50 years .
However , the nearest city recently ( against the wishes of anyone nearby ) decided to put in a new water treatment plant a few miles down the road .
Not close enough to really bother me , thankfully , but close enough that they might want to run lines to my house.That 's great , right ?
Government at work , getting better sewage system out to the country.If the county runs sewer in front of your house , you are * required * to pay to be attached .
That means thousands to tens of thousands of dollars of direct costs that you are required to pay , regardless of whether your current system still has 30 years of life on it , and for no real direct benefit to you.Government-run utilities can do good things , provide good services , all that .
But it 's still government , and there 's still a " must " attached to it that can really screw you over if you 're caught on the wrong end of their plans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think about my municipal water and sewage service all the time.
It's actually a real concern that I might get them.You see, I live in the country, and paid quite a bit when I bought my house to put in a new septic system that should last me 30-50 years.
However, the nearest city recently (against the wishes of anyone nearby) decided to put in a new water treatment plant a few miles down the road.
Not close enough to really bother me, thankfully, but close enough that they might want to run lines to my house.That's great, right?
Government at work, getting better sewage system out to the country.If the county runs sewer in front of your house, you are *required* to pay to be attached.
That means thousands to tens of thousands of dollars of direct costs that you are required to pay, regardless of whether your current system still has 30 years of life on it, and for no real direct benefit to you.Government-run utilities can do good things, provide good services, all that.
But it's still government, and there's still a "must" attached to it that can really screw you over if you're caught on the wrong end of their plans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30211676</id>
	<title>Re:Linesharing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259064480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same for Holland - there used to be a 1 company monopoly in a lot of areas, but eventually that got broken up by dem gov'mint and multiple companies were admitted to the fiber network. The quality of the service skyrocketed. The difference really was freaking huge. And it wasn't that the monopoly of the time in my area, UPC, *couldn't* deliver good service, it's that they didn't have competition and as such no *incentive* to do so. It's all about incentive - companies will not spend money to upgrade networks if not doing so has no consequences. They'll just deny outright that something is wrong - it's the cost-effective thing to do.</p><p>So all is pretty much well now, here. But some of the bigger providers have recently consolidated into one company, which we'll eventually see the not-so-beneficial results of, I'm afraid. Bigger company = unified voice = more lobbying power than separate companies... etc.</p><p>Though, by now people have become used to good internet service, and internet providers can't really get away with making it less good anymore. So I guess the most important thing for america is getting over that first hurdle - of getting people used to good service and instilling that sense of entitlement. People will go apeshit if their beloved tubes are taken away from them. I know I would!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same for Holland - there used to be a 1 company monopoly in a lot of areas , but eventually that got broken up by dem gov'mint and multiple companies were admitted to the fiber network .
The quality of the service skyrocketed .
The difference really was freaking huge .
And it was n't that the monopoly of the time in my area , UPC , * could n't * deliver good service , it 's that they did n't have competition and as such no * incentive * to do so .
It 's all about incentive - companies will not spend money to upgrade networks if not doing so has no consequences .
They 'll just deny outright that something is wrong - it 's the cost-effective thing to do.So all is pretty much well now , here .
But some of the bigger providers have recently consolidated into one company , which we 'll eventually see the not-so-beneficial results of , I 'm afraid .
Bigger company = unified voice = more lobbying power than separate companies... etc.Though , by now people have become used to good internet service , and internet providers ca n't really get away with making it less good anymore .
So I guess the most important thing for america is getting over that first hurdle - of getting people used to good service and instilling that sense of entitlement .
People will go apeshit if their beloved tubes are taken away from them .
I know I would !
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same for Holland - there used to be a 1 company monopoly in a lot of areas, but eventually that got broken up by dem gov'mint and multiple companies were admitted to the fiber network.
The quality of the service skyrocketed.
The difference really was freaking huge.
And it wasn't that the monopoly of the time in my area, UPC, *couldn't* deliver good service, it's that they didn't have competition and as such no *incentive* to do so.
It's all about incentive - companies will not spend money to upgrade networks if not doing so has no consequences.
They'll just deny outright that something is wrong - it's the cost-effective thing to do.So all is pretty much well now, here.
But some of the bigger providers have recently consolidated into one company, which we'll eventually see the not-so-beneficial results of, I'm afraid.
Bigger company = unified voice = more lobbying power than separate companies... etc.Though, by now people have become used to good internet service, and internet providers can't really get away with making it less good anymore.
So I guess the most important thing for america is getting over that first hurdle - of getting people used to good service and instilling that sense of entitlement.
People will go apeshit if their beloved tubes are taken away from them.
I know I would!
:P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205376</id>
	<title>Re:Fascism, DUH</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1258967640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Citation please.  Show me the numbers that demonstrate that all those nations you've cited (save Iceland, which everyone knows is fucked, thanks to US-style banking deregulation) are "teetering on the brink".  Oh, and please define that... because "teetering on the brink" could mean anything (Iceland, being completely bankrupt, clearly went over the brink, but none of the nations you've listed is anywhere near that kind of crisis).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Citation please .
Show me the numbers that demonstrate that all those nations you 've cited ( save Iceland , which everyone knows is fucked , thanks to US-style banking deregulation ) are " teetering on the brink " .
Oh , and please define that... because " teetering on the brink " could mean anything ( Iceland , being completely bankrupt , clearly went over the brink , but none of the nations you 've listed is anywhere near that kind of crisis ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Citation please.
Show me the numbers that demonstrate that all those nations you've cited (save Iceland, which everyone knows is fucked, thanks to US-style banking deregulation) are "teetering on the brink".
Oh, and please define that... because "teetering on the brink" could mean anything (Iceland, being completely bankrupt, clearly went over the brink, but none of the nations you've listed is anywhere near that kind of crisis).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204878</id>
	<title>Re:I see what they did there...</title>
	<author>cc\_pirate</author>
	<datestamp>1259007600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What crap.  Trickle down is a failure.</p><p>We just saw the era of lowest taxes on the rich and corporations since the introduction of the income tax and the highest level of corporate welfare ever as well... and the job generation rate during that time was one of the LOWEST EVER.</p><p>So please stop espousing the idiotic opinion that somehow giving the rich more money means the rest of us get more money.  It doesn't work that way now if it ever did and the DATA doesn't lie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What crap .
Trickle down is a failure.We just saw the era of lowest taxes on the rich and corporations since the introduction of the income tax and the highest level of corporate welfare ever as well... and the job generation rate during that time was one of the LOWEST EVER.So please stop espousing the idiotic opinion that somehow giving the rich more money means the rest of us get more money .
It does n't work that way now if it ever did and the DATA does n't lie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What crap.
Trickle down is a failure.We just saw the era of lowest taxes on the rich and corporations since the introduction of the income tax and the highest level of corporate welfare ever as well... and the job generation rate during that time was one of the LOWEST EVER.So please stop espousing the idiotic opinion that somehow giving the rich more money means the rest of us get more money.
It doesn't work that way now if it ever did and the DATA doesn't lie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204722</id>
	<title>Re:More competition needed</title>
	<author>10101001 10101001</author>
	<datestamp>1259006580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm not sure that you can have worse service than no service.</p></div></blockquote><p>Scenario 1 - I have to pay $100/month for phone service to the one provider in the area or any job with a livable wage in my area will fire me for failing to have a phone line.  I only obtain $80/month above the average wage, x, for any job to pay for the phone line.  I effectively earn (x-$20)/month.</p><p>Scenario 2 - There is no phone service provider in my area, so no job with a livable wage in my area will fire me for failing to have a phone line.  I obtain $20/month above the average wage, x, for any job to compensate for a lack of phone service in the area.  I effectively earn (x+$20)/month.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure that you can have worse service than no service.Scenario 1 - I have to pay $ 100/month for phone service to the one provider in the area or any job with a livable wage in my area will fire me for failing to have a phone line .
I only obtain $ 80/month above the average wage , x , for any job to pay for the phone line .
I effectively earn ( x- $ 20 ) /month.Scenario 2 - There is no phone service provider in my area , so no job with a livable wage in my area will fire me for failing to have a phone line .
I obtain $ 20/month above the average wage , x , for any job to compensate for a lack of phone service in the area .
I effectively earn ( x + $ 20 ) /month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure that you can have worse service than no service.Scenario 1 - I have to pay $100/month for phone service to the one provider in the area or any job with a livable wage in my area will fire me for failing to have a phone line.
I only obtain $80/month above the average wage, x, for any job to pay for the phone line.
I effectively earn (x-$20)/month.Scenario 2 - There is no phone service provider in my area, so no job with a livable wage in my area will fire me for failing to have a phone line.
I obtain $20/month above the average wage, x, for any job to compensate for a lack of phone service in the area.
I effectively earn (x+$20)/month.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30210502</id>
	<title>Re:Fascism, DUH</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1259002620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All the efforts to empower common man will be <i>resisted</i> because legislative, judiciary, administration &amp; business community will not allow their <i>clout</i> to be diluted and they want you to be <i>subservient</i> forever.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All the efforts to empower common man will be resisted because legislative , judiciary , administration &amp; business community will not allow their clout to be diluted and they want you to be subservient forever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the efforts to empower common man will be resisted because legislative, judiciary, administration &amp; business community will not allow their clout to be diluted and they want you to be subservient forever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204608</id>
	<title>Re:I see what they did there...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259005920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suspect it's because many of them lay awake at night, touching themselves and dreaming that it's <i>them</i> running the big corporation or whatever...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect it 's because many of them lay awake at night , touching themselves and dreaming that it 's them running the big corporation or whatever.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect it's because many of them lay awake at night, touching themselves and dreaming that it's them running the big corporation or whatever...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203840</id>
	<title>More competition needed</title>
	<author>Maximum Prophet</author>
	<datestamp>1259001720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Verizon notes, open access and unbundling would be a bad policy for the United States, largely because of the rural nature of much of the country. "The problem in these rural and low-density areas is that they have been unable to attract even a single entrant," the telco argues. "Imposing unbundling will not only fail to solve this problem, but will only make things worse: <b>if the economics do not currently support a single provider, they are even less likely to support multiple</b>(and potentially an unlimited number of) providers."</p></div><p>
I'm not sure that you can have worse service than no service.
There are many areas that only allow one (or a few) providers.  If that one provider chooses not to give service to a part of it's service area, those people are screwed.   Maximum innovation will come from maximum competition.   It's called capitalism,  but it always seemed to me that capitalists usually want the least amount of competition possible.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Verizon notes , open access and unbundling would be a bad policy for the United States , largely because of the rural nature of much of the country .
" The problem in these rural and low-density areas is that they have been unable to attract even a single entrant , " the telco argues .
" Imposing unbundling will not only fail to solve this problem , but will only make things worse : if the economics do not currently support a single provider , they are even less likely to support multiple ( and potentially an unlimited number of ) providers .
" I 'm not sure that you can have worse service than no service .
There are many areas that only allow one ( or a few ) providers .
If that one provider chooses not to give service to a part of it 's service area , those people are screwed .
Maximum innovation will come from maximum competition .
It 's called capitalism , but it always seemed to me that capitalists usually want the least amount of competition possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Verizon notes, open access and unbundling would be a bad policy for the United States, largely because of the rural nature of much of the country.
"The problem in these rural and low-density areas is that they have been unable to attract even a single entrant," the telco argues.
"Imposing unbundling will not only fail to solve this problem, but will only make things worse: if the economics do not currently support a single provider, they are even less likely to support multiple(and potentially an unlimited number of) providers.
"
I'm not sure that you can have worse service than no service.
There are many areas that only allow one (or a few) providers.
If that one provider chooses not to give service to a part of it's service area, those people are screwed.
Maximum innovation will come from maximum competition.
It's called capitalism,  but it always seemed to me that capitalists usually want the least amount of competition possible.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205992</id>
	<title>Re:I see what they did there...</title>
	<author>element-o.p.</author>
	<datestamp>1258970940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow...you said that with a straight face, too!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow...you said that with a straight face , too !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow...you said that with a straight face, too!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30210154</id>
	<title>Re:Separate ISP's businesses</title>
	<author>gordguide</author>
	<datestamp>1258997760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The access should have been priced at the Teleco's wholesale cost; it's not particularly relevant what that cost is, as long as everyone attempting to enter the market faces it equally. If you say that the integrated companies had lower costs simply because they were integrated, then perhaps those two parts of the business should have been separated, so that the provider division paid the supplier division as if it were an independent entity. Mandating the cost is a mistake; it is what it is, and there's nothing particularly anti-competitive in that.</p><p>I think the conclusion, however, that the mandated price was responsible for all that failed is a little short of the whole story, and assigns too much blame to one factor alone.</p><p>"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... End result was that Ameritech (former Illinois Bell company that owned the lines) would get a request to put a different company's DSLAM into their CO and they would sit on it for a while hoping it would just go away. If it did get installed, provisioning the lines to connect to it would be made dead last priority - as you would expect.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</p><p>Your description clearly shows the Telcos are a clever lot, and faced with the letter of the law, complied with the letter of the law, while blatently ignoring the intent of the law, by stonewalling connections.</p><p>Now, that looks like anti-competitive behavior.</p><p>Perhaps the good people of Illinois should buy the state Attourney General a hooker and see if a Elliot Sptizer-type comes calling and gets the job done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The access should have been priced at the Teleco 's wholesale cost ; it 's not particularly relevant what that cost is , as long as everyone attempting to enter the market faces it equally .
If you say that the integrated companies had lower costs simply because they were integrated , then perhaps those two parts of the business should have been separated , so that the provider division paid the supplier division as if it were an independent entity .
Mandating the cost is a mistake ; it is what it is , and there 's nothing particularly anti-competitive in that.I think the conclusion , however , that the mandated price was responsible for all that failed is a little short of the whole story , and assigns too much blame to one factor alone .
" ... End result was that Ameritech ( former Illinois Bell company that owned the lines ) would get a request to put a different company 's DSLAM into their CO and they would sit on it for a while hoping it would just go away .
If it did get installed , provisioning the lines to connect to it would be made dead last priority - as you would expect .
... " Your description clearly shows the Telcos are a clever lot , and faced with the letter of the law , complied with the letter of the law , while blatently ignoring the intent of the law , by stonewalling connections.Now , that looks like anti-competitive behavior.Perhaps the good people of Illinois should buy the state Attourney General a hooker and see if a Elliot Sptizer-type comes calling and gets the job done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The access should have been priced at the Teleco's wholesale cost; it's not particularly relevant what that cost is, as long as everyone attempting to enter the market faces it equally.
If you say that the integrated companies had lower costs simply because they were integrated, then perhaps those two parts of the business should have been separated, so that the provider division paid the supplier division as if it were an independent entity.
Mandating the cost is a mistake; it is what it is, and there's nothing particularly anti-competitive in that.I think the conclusion, however, that the mandated price was responsible for all that failed is a little short of the whole story, and assigns too much blame to one factor alone.
" ... End result was that Ameritech (former Illinois Bell company that owned the lines) would get a request to put a different company's DSLAM into their CO and they would sit on it for a while hoping it would just go away.
If it did get installed, provisioning the lines to connect to it would be made dead last priority - as you would expect.
..."Your description clearly shows the Telcos are a clever lot, and faced with the letter of the law, complied with the letter of the law, while blatently ignoring the intent of the law, by stonewalling connections.Now, that looks like anti-competitive behavior.Perhaps the good people of Illinois should buy the state Attourney General a hooker and see if a Elliot Sptizer-type comes calling and gets the job done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204634</id>
	<title>Wahhh!!!</title>
	<author>tthomas48</author>
	<datestamp>1259006100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We compete... see there's a 5 cent difference between their plan and ours...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We compete... see there 's a 5 cent difference between their plan and ours.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We compete... see there's a 5 cent difference between their plan and ours...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205032</id>
	<title>Re:Fascism, DUH</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1259008560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The only quibble I have is that corporate welfare really only came into vogue with Reagan after our ideological rival, the soviet union's fate was pretty much sealed.</i></p><p>In Soviet Russia (no joke, no meme) the government controled industry, with disastrous results. In the modern day US, industry controls government, and I fear the result may be equally disasterous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only quibble I have is that corporate welfare really only came into vogue with Reagan after our ideological rival , the soviet union 's fate was pretty much sealed.In Soviet Russia ( no joke , no meme ) the government controled industry , with disastrous results .
In the modern day US , industry controls government , and I fear the result may be equally disasterous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only quibble I have is that corporate welfare really only came into vogue with Reagan after our ideological rival, the soviet union's fate was pretty much sealed.In Soviet Russia (no joke, no meme) the government controled industry, with disastrous results.
In the modern day US, industry controls government, and I fear the result may be equally disasterous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30208394</id>
	<title>Re:More competition needed</title>
	<author>skorch</author>
	<datestamp>1258981260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think about my municipal water and sewage service all the time. It's actually a real concern that I might get them.</p><p>You see, I live in the country, and paid quite a bit when I bought my house to put in a new septic system that should last me 30-50 years. However, the nearest city recently (against the wishes of anyone nearby) decided to put in a new water treatment plant a few miles down the road. Not close enough to really bother me, thankfully, but close enough that they might want to run lines to my house.</p><p>That's great, right? Government at work, getting better sewage system out to the country.</p><p>If the county runs sewer in front of your house, you are *required* to pay to be attached. That means thousands to tens of thousands of dollars of direct costs that you are required to pay, regardless of whether your current system still has 30 years of life on it, and for no real direct benefit to you.</p><p>Government-run utilities can do good things, provide good services, all that. But it's still government, and there's still a "must" attached to it that can really screw you over if you're caught on the wrong end of their plans.</p></div><p>Just out of curiosity, how much would you, or those who inherit your property, have to pay to replace this septic system in 30 years compared to the cost of connecting to the government run system then as opposed to now?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think about my municipal water and sewage service all the time .
It 's actually a real concern that I might get them.You see , I live in the country , and paid quite a bit when I bought my house to put in a new septic system that should last me 30-50 years .
However , the nearest city recently ( against the wishes of anyone nearby ) decided to put in a new water treatment plant a few miles down the road .
Not close enough to really bother me , thankfully , but close enough that they might want to run lines to my house.That 's great , right ?
Government at work , getting better sewage system out to the country.If the county runs sewer in front of your house , you are * required * to pay to be attached .
That means thousands to tens of thousands of dollars of direct costs that you are required to pay , regardless of whether your current system still has 30 years of life on it , and for no real direct benefit to you.Government-run utilities can do good things , provide good services , all that .
But it 's still government , and there 's still a " must " attached to it that can really screw you over if you 're caught on the wrong end of their plans.Just out of curiosity , how much would you , or those who inherit your property , have to pay to replace this septic system in 30 years compared to the cost of connecting to the government run system then as opposed to now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think about my municipal water and sewage service all the time.
It's actually a real concern that I might get them.You see, I live in the country, and paid quite a bit when I bought my house to put in a new septic system that should last me 30-50 years.
However, the nearest city recently (against the wishes of anyone nearby) decided to put in a new water treatment plant a few miles down the road.
Not close enough to really bother me, thankfully, but close enough that they might want to run lines to my house.That's great, right?
Government at work, getting better sewage system out to the country.If the county runs sewer in front of your house, you are *required* to pay to be attached.
That means thousands to tens of thousands of dollars of direct costs that you are required to pay, regardless of whether your current system still has 30 years of life on it, and for no real direct benefit to you.Government-run utilities can do good things, provide good services, all that.
But it's still government, and there's still a "must" attached to it that can really screw you over if you're caught on the wrong end of their plans.Just out of curiosity, how much would you, or those who inherit your property, have to pay to replace this septic system in 30 years compared to the cost of connecting to the government run system then as opposed to now?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30207346</id>
	<title>Re:Separate ISP's businesses</title>
	<author>Late Adopter</author>
	<datestamp>1258976400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1. Separate the ISPs into separate entities. Phone service in one company, internet service in another, television in a third.
2. Separate the ownership of the infrastructure into another company</p></div><p>I agree with (2) but why (1)?  It's all data delivery, whether from a phone to a phone, or a satellite to a set-top-box, or Facebook to your browser.  The distinction is becoming increasingly artificial these days.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Separate the ISPs into separate entities .
Phone service in one company , internet service in another , television in a third .
2. Separate the ownership of the infrastructure into another companyI agree with ( 2 ) but why ( 1 ) ?
It 's all data delivery , whether from a phone to a phone , or a satellite to a set-top-box , or Facebook to your browser .
The distinction is becoming increasingly artificial these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Separate the ISPs into separate entities.
Phone service in one company, internet service in another, television in a third.
2. Separate the ownership of the infrastructure into another companyI agree with (2) but why (1)?
It's all data delivery, whether from a phone to a phone, or a satellite to a set-top-box, or Facebook to your browser.
The distinction is becoming increasingly artificial these days.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204746</id>
	<title>Re:Separate ISP's businesses</title>
	<author>ubercam</author>
	<datestamp>1259006760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like the approach the UK govt took with BT. They split them up into BT Openreach and BT Phone/Internet. The end result is that the telephone lines are owned by Openreach and every phone company or DSL provider (there are loads) deals with Openreach for access. BT pays the same for access as Tiscali or Be or anyone else. It works well enough from what I can tell (Disclaimer: I'm Canadian but I know a bit about it).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like the approach the UK govt took with BT .
They split them up into BT Openreach and BT Phone/Internet .
The end result is that the telephone lines are owned by Openreach and every phone company or DSL provider ( there are loads ) deals with Openreach for access .
BT pays the same for access as Tiscali or Be or anyone else .
It works well enough from what I can tell ( Disclaimer : I 'm Canadian but I know a bit about it ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like the approach the UK govt took with BT.
They split them up into BT Openreach and BT Phone/Internet.
The end result is that the telephone lines are owned by Openreach and every phone company or DSL provider (there are loads) deals with Openreach for access.
BT pays the same for access as Tiscali or Be or anyone else.
It works well enough from what I can tell (Disclaimer: I'm Canadian but I know a bit about it).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204686</id>
	<title>Re:I see what they did there...</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1259006460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, Bush didn't, you need to go back another term to find the source.</p><p>On a slightly different note, please explain what Obama has actually done differently than Bush.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , Bush did n't , you need to go back another term to find the source.On a slightly different note , please explain what Obama has actually done differently than Bush .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, Bush didn't, you need to go back another term to find the source.On a slightly different note, please explain what Obama has actually done differently than Bush.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203828</id>
	<title>Re:I see what they did there...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259001660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The internet industry was already given tax money to implement infrastructure once. That money was distributed to shareholders as profit. And since there was no punishment clause, they never had to implement the infrastructure that they agreed to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The internet industry was already given tax money to implement infrastructure once .
That money was distributed to shareholders as profit .
And since there was no punishment clause , they never had to implement the infrastructure that they agreed to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The internet industry was already given tax money to implement infrastructure once.
That money was distributed to shareholders as profit.
And since there was no punishment clause, they never had to implement the infrastructure that they agreed to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203668</id>
	<title>I see what they did there...</title>
	<author>EndlessNameless</author>
	<datestamp>1259000700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Free money, no mandates. This sounds like the initial Bush stimulus package, so it's entirely without precedent.</p><p>If their development is going to be subsidized with federal funds, they damn well better open those lines. And they should be required to meet coverage quotas if they want any of those rural development funds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Free money , no mandates .
This sounds like the initial Bush stimulus package , so it 's entirely without precedent.If their development is going to be subsidized with federal funds , they damn well better open those lines .
And they should be required to meet coverage quotas if they want any of those rural development funds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Free money, no mandates.
This sounds like the initial Bush stimulus package, so it's entirely without precedent.If their development is going to be subsidized with federal funds, they damn well better open those lines.
And they should be required to meet coverage quotas if they want any of those rural development funds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204480</id>
	<title>sure, you can have your subsidies</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1259005260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and thanks for the free service</p><p>wait... you mean you want charge us for what we paid for already?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and thanks for the free servicewait... you mean you want charge us for what we paid for already ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and thanks for the free servicewait... you mean you want charge us for what we paid for already?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30207096</id>
	<title>Re:More competition needed</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1258975500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My mom lives about a mile and a half outside a medium-sized Midwest city.  When my dad was alive, he once served as the campaign director for a friend of his who was running for County Commissioner, and they won the election.  Fast forward about 15 years.</p><p>The <em>county</em> commission voted to enact a leash law.  In this case, "county" means "sparsely populated area surrounding the city", not like Orange in SoCal.  My mom owns a big, friendly mutt who pretty much kept her sane after my dad died.  She was faced with a few options: get rid of her beloved pet (not gonna happen), turn the 100+ pound dog into an indoor pet (which would <em>not</em> have ended happily), or fence the yard.  So she fenced it.  All five acres.  I have no idea what she actually paid for it, but that couldn't have been cheap.</p><p>Well, about a year later, Charlie The County Commissioner was running for re-election and called my mom for a campaign donation.  After all, her dearly departed husband helped elect him, right?  Mom told him, "sure!  I'd love to!  Put me down for $10,000.  Oh, wait: that's how much I had to spend to build the <b>redacted</b> fence that your backward-assed commission forced me to put up to comply with the <b>redacted</b> leash law in the middle of the <b>redacted</b> countryside. Shove it up your <b>redacted</b> and don't ever call me again."  She said that was the best phone call she's ever had.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My mom lives about a mile and a half outside a medium-sized Midwest city .
When my dad was alive , he once served as the campaign director for a friend of his who was running for County Commissioner , and they won the election .
Fast forward about 15 years.The county commission voted to enact a leash law .
In this case , " county " means " sparsely populated area surrounding the city " , not like Orange in SoCal .
My mom owns a big , friendly mutt who pretty much kept her sane after my dad died .
She was faced with a few options : get rid of her beloved pet ( not gon na happen ) , turn the 100 + pound dog into an indoor pet ( which would not have ended happily ) , or fence the yard .
So she fenced it .
All five acres .
I have no idea what she actually paid for it , but that could n't have been cheap.Well , about a year later , Charlie The County Commissioner was running for re-election and called my mom for a campaign donation .
After all , her dearly departed husband helped elect him , right ?
Mom told him , " sure !
I 'd love to !
Put me down for $ 10,000 .
Oh , wait : that 's how much I had to spend to build the redacted fence that your backward-assed commission forced me to put up to comply with the redacted leash law in the middle of the redacted countryside .
Shove it up your redacted and do n't ever call me again .
" She said that was the best phone call she 's ever had .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My mom lives about a mile and a half outside a medium-sized Midwest city.
When my dad was alive, he once served as the campaign director for a friend of his who was running for County Commissioner, and they won the election.
Fast forward about 15 years.The county commission voted to enact a leash law.
In this case, "county" means "sparsely populated area surrounding the city", not like Orange in SoCal.
My mom owns a big, friendly mutt who pretty much kept her sane after my dad died.
She was faced with a few options: get rid of her beloved pet (not gonna happen), turn the 100+ pound dog into an indoor pet (which would not have ended happily), or fence the yard.
So she fenced it.
All five acres.
I have no idea what she actually paid for it, but that couldn't have been cheap.Well, about a year later, Charlie The County Commissioner was running for re-election and called my mom for a campaign donation.
After all, her dearly departed husband helped elect him, right?
Mom told him, "sure!
I'd love to!
Put me down for $10,000.
Oh, wait: that's how much I had to spend to build the redacted fence that your backward-assed commission forced me to put up to comply with the redacted leash law in the middle of the redacted countryside.
Shove it up your redacted and don't ever call me again.
"  She said that was the best phone call she's ever had.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30208854</id>
	<title>Re:Separate ISP's businesses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258984200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1. Separate the ISPs into separate entities. Phone service in one company, internet service in another, television in a third.</p></div><p>This is a bad idea. Phone, Internet, cable<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... they all have something in common, namely they are all centered around transporting digital information. It makes perfect sense for a company to provide all three services, and give their customers a rebate if they use the same company for all. However, having the physical lines owned by a private company doesn't make sense - if you want to switch provider, you don't want them to have to install a new cable for you.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>2. Separate the ownership of the infrastructure into another company</p></div><p>Yes, this is what should be done</p><p><div class="quote"><p>3. Make the three companies from part 1 pay company from part 2 for access</p></div><p>With the addition that the "company" in part 2 shouldn't be run as a private company, for the same reason you don't have roads being owned by private companies - the physical line forms the conduit over which private companies can compete to provide services, but in any country that still has some rural regions you will want to be able to overcharge the customers in urban areas to provide reasonable service in rural areas.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>4. allow any other company access to part 2's lines for the same fee as it charges part 1 companies</p><p>5. don't EVER allow them to merge again</p></div><p>Shouldn't be a problem - the government stays out of this part of the service sector, and simply provides a level playing field for any private comapny that wishes to provide digital services to their customers</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Separate the ISPs into separate entities .
Phone service in one company , internet service in another , television in a third.This is a bad idea .
Phone , Internet , cable ... they all have something in common , namely they are all centered around transporting digital information .
It makes perfect sense for a company to provide all three services , and give their customers a rebate if they use the same company for all .
However , having the physical lines owned by a private company does n't make sense - if you want to switch provider , you do n't want them to have to install a new cable for you.2 .
Separate the ownership of the infrastructure into another companyYes , this is what should be done3 .
Make the three companies from part 1 pay company from part 2 for accessWith the addition that the " company " in part 2 should n't be run as a private company , for the same reason you do n't have roads being owned by private companies - the physical line forms the conduit over which private companies can compete to provide services , but in any country that still has some rural regions you will want to be able to overcharge the customers in urban areas to provide reasonable service in rural areas.4 .
allow any other company access to part 2 's lines for the same fee as it charges part 1 companies5 .
do n't EVER allow them to merge againShould n't be a problem - the government stays out of this part of the service sector , and simply provides a level playing field for any private comapny that wishes to provide digital services to their customers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Separate the ISPs into separate entities.
Phone service in one company, internet service in another, television in a third.This is a bad idea.
Phone, Internet, cable ... they all have something in common, namely they are all centered around transporting digital information.
It makes perfect sense for a company to provide all three services, and give their customers a rebate if they use the same company for all.
However, having the physical lines owned by a private company doesn't make sense - if you want to switch provider, you don't want them to have to install a new cable for you.2.
Separate the ownership of the infrastructure into another companyYes, this is what should be done3.
Make the three companies from part 1 pay company from part 2 for accessWith the addition that the "company" in part 2 shouldn't be run as a private company, for the same reason you don't have roads being owned by private companies - the physical line forms the conduit over which private companies can compete to provide services, but in any country that still has some rural regions you will want to be able to overcharge the customers in urban areas to provide reasonable service in rural areas.4.
allow any other company access to part 2's lines for the same fee as it charges part 1 companies5.
don't EVER allow them to merge againShouldn't be a problem - the government stays out of this part of the service sector, and simply provides a level playing field for any private comapny that wishes to provide digital services to their customers
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203902</id>
	<title>Attn: Telcos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259002080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ahem.. (clears throat). FUCK YOU!</p><p>The taxpayer gave you Millions if not Billions back in the 90's for infrastructure upgrades. And now, a decade later, with YOU posting record profits, and infrastructure being upgraded at a rate comparable to snails pace, you have the gall to ask for more money from the taxpayers, i.e. your CUSTOMERS?</p><p>Pardon me Big Telco, but FUCK YOU!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahem.. ( clears throat ) .
FUCK YOU ! The taxpayer gave you Millions if not Billions back in the 90 's for infrastructure upgrades .
And now , a decade later , with YOU posting record profits , and infrastructure being upgraded at a rate comparable to snails pace , you have the gall to ask for more money from the taxpayers , i.e .
your CUSTOMERS ? Pardon me Big Telco , but FUCK YOU !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahem.. (clears throat).
FUCK YOU!The taxpayer gave you Millions if not Billions back in the 90's for infrastructure upgrades.
And now, a decade later, with YOU posting record profits, and infrastructure being upgraded at a rate comparable to snails pace, you have the gall to ask for more money from the taxpayers, i.e.
your CUSTOMERS?Pardon me Big Telco, but FUCK YOU!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30209306</id>
	<title>Re:you're a middling propagandist</title>
	<author>im\_thatoneguy</author>
	<datestamp>1258987980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The tea party was instigated by bunch of wealthy tea brokers whose business was going to be steamrolled by a cut in prices by a new monopoly that would cut out the overhead from dealers.  The tax hike wasn't actually a tax hike, it was a net price decrease but instead of shipping all tea through London and imposing the tariff on English soil the British thought it would be more efficient to drop ship the tea to the states and cut out the extra shipping.</p><p>All around a sensible plan and would have worked out great for everybody... except for the wealthy tea brokers.  And the rest is history.</p><p>Corporate interests were undermining public policy long before there were founding fathers.  Many of our founding fathers were lobbying on behalf of the cotton growers' right to keep slaves.  Our constitution was has the ink of corporate lobbyists all over it.  It's at the heart and soul of our nation.  We even indirectly fought a civil war over the rights of landowners and businessmen over slaves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The tea party was instigated by bunch of wealthy tea brokers whose business was going to be steamrolled by a cut in prices by a new monopoly that would cut out the overhead from dealers .
The tax hike was n't actually a tax hike , it was a net price decrease but instead of shipping all tea through London and imposing the tariff on English soil the British thought it would be more efficient to drop ship the tea to the states and cut out the extra shipping.All around a sensible plan and would have worked out great for everybody... except for the wealthy tea brokers .
And the rest is history.Corporate interests were undermining public policy long before there were founding fathers .
Many of our founding fathers were lobbying on behalf of the cotton growers ' right to keep slaves .
Our constitution was has the ink of corporate lobbyists all over it .
It 's at the heart and soul of our nation .
We even indirectly fought a civil war over the rights of landowners and businessmen over slaves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The tea party was instigated by bunch of wealthy tea brokers whose business was going to be steamrolled by a cut in prices by a new monopoly that would cut out the overhead from dealers.
The tax hike wasn't actually a tax hike, it was a net price decrease but instead of shipping all tea through London and imposing the tariff on English soil the British thought it would be more efficient to drop ship the tea to the states and cut out the extra shipping.All around a sensible plan and would have worked out great for everybody... except for the wealthy tea brokers.
And the rest is history.Corporate interests were undermining public policy long before there were founding fathers.
Many of our founding fathers were lobbying on behalf of the cotton growers' right to keep slaves.
Our constitution was has the ink of corporate lobbyists all over it.
It's at the heart and soul of our nation.
We even indirectly fought a civil war over the rights of landowners and businessmen over slaves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30206690</id>
	<title>Re:No problem, give them all the subsidies they wa</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258973880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When there were no strings attached everyone wanted their share. Once they started insisting on wage caps suddenly no one needed the money.</p></div><p>Oh they needed the money, but only because the insurance they had on all their crappy investments wasn't paying out. But then the government stepped in and gave AIG enough money to cover all their payouts and the other financial institutions realized that rather than taking money directly from the government, they could just get their money from AIG with no strings attached.</p><p>If we had to bail out AIG, we should have done it with the condition that not only their management would have those conditions placed on them but also the management of any company that accepted payouts from AIG. But since we didn't, AIG became the loophole that allowed everyone else to collect government money without the conditions that made direct bailout money undesirable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When there were no strings attached everyone wanted their share .
Once they started insisting on wage caps suddenly no one needed the money.Oh they needed the money , but only because the insurance they had on all their crappy investments was n't paying out .
But then the government stepped in and gave AIG enough money to cover all their payouts and the other financial institutions realized that rather than taking money directly from the government , they could just get their money from AIG with no strings attached.If we had to bail out AIG , we should have done it with the condition that not only their management would have those conditions placed on them but also the management of any company that accepted payouts from AIG .
But since we did n't , AIG became the loophole that allowed everyone else to collect government money without the conditions that made direct bailout money undesirable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When there were no strings attached everyone wanted their share.
Once they started insisting on wage caps suddenly no one needed the money.Oh they needed the money, but only because the insurance they had on all their crappy investments wasn't paying out.
But then the government stepped in and gave AIG enough money to cover all their payouts and the other financial institutions realized that rather than taking money directly from the government, they could just get their money from AIG with no strings attached.If we had to bail out AIG, we should have done it with the condition that not only their management would have those conditions placed on them but also the management of any company that accepted payouts from AIG.
But since we didn't, AIG became the loophole that allowed everyone else to collect government money without the conditions that made direct bailout money undesirable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30207588</id>
	<title>Re:Separate ISP's businesses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258977240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It already partially works like this.<br>
I've seen orders provided to Verizon Business by a third party who then contracts portions of that over Verizon off-net.<br>
Telecommunications itself actually has quite a lot of competition if you want a T3 or OC12 or Gig Ethernet between a couple of ILECs. It's just the last mile where shit gets really crooked, especially wireless.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It already partially works like this .
I 've seen orders provided to Verizon Business by a third party who then contracts portions of that over Verizon off-net .
Telecommunications itself actually has quite a lot of competition if you want a T3 or OC12 or Gig Ethernet between a couple of ILECs .
It 's just the last mile where shit gets really crooked , especially wireless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It already partially works like this.
I've seen orders provided to Verizon Business by a third party who then contracts portions of that over Verizon off-net.
Telecommunications itself actually has quite a lot of competition if you want a T3 or OC12 or Gig Ethernet between a couple of ILECs.
It's just the last mile where shit gets really crooked, especially wireless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205078</id>
	<title>Re:More competition needed</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1259008800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also, it's not clear to me that the economics don't support a single provider and are unable to attract a single entrant.  The failure to attract an entrant in some of the underserved areas has to be the phone company itself.
</p><p>If I were going to invest in a small business which was building out fiber infrastructure in smaller towns, I suspect one of my largest worries would be Verizon.  Even if I could afford to lay the fiber and support service, I would have to face the fact that Verizon could pretty much come in and roll over me whenever they wanted.  They have the money to undercut me, even if it means functioning at a loss, and they have the money to pay for legislation to be passed that favors them and puts me out of business.
</p><p>That's the problem with monopolistic situations.  The monopoly power can sit around and speculate that their control must be due to their doing a good job, or that the situation just doesn't allow for competition.  There may be some truth to those ideas, but it dismisses the role that the monopolist plays in the situation, not allowing for competition.
</p><p>And maybe it's true that the economics of Internet infrastructure will ultimately only allow for a single set of cable to be run to each location.  To me, that would be the foundation for a very good argument that Internet infrastructure needs to be controlled and regulated by the government, and made open and available for everyone to use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , it 's not clear to me that the economics do n't support a single provider and are unable to attract a single entrant .
The failure to attract an entrant in some of the underserved areas has to be the phone company itself .
If I were going to invest in a small business which was building out fiber infrastructure in smaller towns , I suspect one of my largest worries would be Verizon .
Even if I could afford to lay the fiber and support service , I would have to face the fact that Verizon could pretty much come in and roll over me whenever they wanted .
They have the money to undercut me , even if it means functioning at a loss , and they have the money to pay for legislation to be passed that favors them and puts me out of business .
That 's the problem with monopolistic situations .
The monopoly power can sit around and speculate that their control must be due to their doing a good job , or that the situation just does n't allow for competition .
There may be some truth to those ideas , but it dismisses the role that the monopolist plays in the situation , not allowing for competition .
And maybe it 's true that the economics of Internet infrastructure will ultimately only allow for a single set of cable to be run to each location .
To me , that would be the foundation for a very good argument that Internet infrastructure needs to be controlled and regulated by the government , and made open and available for everyone to use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, it's not clear to me that the economics don't support a single provider and are unable to attract a single entrant.
The failure to attract an entrant in some of the underserved areas has to be the phone company itself.
If I were going to invest in a small business which was building out fiber infrastructure in smaller towns, I suspect one of my largest worries would be Verizon.
Even if I could afford to lay the fiber and support service, I would have to face the fact that Verizon could pretty much come in and roll over me whenever they wanted.
They have the money to undercut me, even if it means functioning at a loss, and they have the money to pay for legislation to be passed that favors them and puts me out of business.
That's the problem with monopolistic situations.
The monopoly power can sit around and speculate that their control must be due to their doing a good job, or that the situation just doesn't allow for competition.
There may be some truth to those ideas, but it dismisses the role that the monopolist plays in the situation, not allowing for competition.
And maybe it's true that the economics of Internet infrastructure will ultimately only allow for a single set of cable to be run to each location.
To me, that would be the foundation for a very good argument that Internet infrastructure needs to be controlled and regulated by the government, and made open and available for everyone to use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204904</id>
	<title>Oh, no they don't....</title>
	<author>TheHawke</author>
	<datestamp>1259007780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering the lack of attention to the details of improving rural service, I feel that they do not deserve a single nickle of gov't funding.</p><p>Fact is, they got a lot of gall for asking for more money after the stunning YTD they posted on the market, both wireless and wired.</p><p>Until they can show REAL (as in purchase orders for equipment, permits for installation of same, they really do not deserve any outside funding at all.</p><p>They've been living off the fat for this long, I think that it would be high time to put them on some lean rations for a while.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering the lack of attention to the details of improving rural service , I feel that they do not deserve a single nickle of gov't funding.Fact is , they got a lot of gall for asking for more money after the stunning YTD they posted on the market , both wireless and wired.Until they can show REAL ( as in purchase orders for equipment , permits for installation of same , they really do not deserve any outside funding at all.They 've been living off the fat for this long , I think that it would be high time to put them on some lean rations for a while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering the lack of attention to the details of improving rural service, I feel that they do not deserve a single nickle of gov't funding.Fact is, they got a lot of gall for asking for more money after the stunning YTD they posted on the market, both wireless and wired.Until they can show REAL (as in purchase orders for equipment, permits for installation of same, they really do not deserve any outside funding at all.They've been living off the fat for this long, I think that it would be high time to put them on some lean rations for a while.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30206544</id>
	<title>Re:I see what they did there...</title>
	<author>EvilCowzGoMoo</author>
	<datestamp>1258973280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>Bush was a disaster for this country; indeed, for the entire world -- for everyone but the corporates and the uber-rich.</p></div></blockquote><p>fortunately, the 'corporates and uber-rich' are the ones who sign paychecks, so what's good for them winds up being good for SHAREHOLDERS too.</p></div><p>
Fixed that for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bush was a disaster for this country ; indeed , for the entire world -- for everyone but the corporates and the uber-rich.fortunately , the 'corporates and uber-rich ' are the ones who sign paychecks , so what 's good for them winds up being good for SHAREHOLDERS too .
Fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bush was a disaster for this country; indeed, for the entire world -- for everyone but the corporates and the uber-rich.fortunately, the 'corporates and uber-rich' are the ones who sign paychecks, so what's good for them winds up being good for SHAREHOLDERS too.
Fixed that for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30207044</id>
	<title>Re:Separate ISP's businesses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258975320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just like to say that the CS was a hell of a lot better before AT&amp;T was split up. I could go down the the AT&amp;T center, and get someone to come out in a few hours, or right away, to fix anything phone related for free.</p><p>After the split, you can wait days for them to come, and hope that what ever is broke won't cost $100's to fix or is part of you phone repair plan.</p><p>Oh, and the price was vary good in the past too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just like to say that the CS was a hell of a lot better before AT&amp;T was split up .
I could go down the the AT&amp;T center , and get someone to come out in a few hours , or right away , to fix anything phone related for free.After the split , you can wait days for them to come , and hope that what ever is broke wo n't cost $ 100 's to fix or is part of you phone repair plan.Oh , and the price was vary good in the past too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just like to say that the CS was a hell of a lot better before AT&amp;T was split up.
I could go down the the AT&amp;T center, and get someone to come out in a few hours, or right away, to fix anything phone related for free.After the split, you can wait days for them to come, and hope that what ever is broke won't cost $100's to fix or is part of you phone repair plan.Oh, and the price was vary good in the past too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205434</id>
	<title>Re:I see what they did there...</title>
	<author>SnapShot</author>
	<datestamp>1258968000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MAN! <b>THAT</b> was <i>excellent</i>.  You <b>sure</b> told them.  I'm GLAD that you are helping to ELEVATE the \_level\_ or <b>DIScourse</b> in this country!!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MAN !
THAT was excellent .
You sure told them .
I 'm GLAD that you are helping to ELEVATE the \ _level \ _ or DIScourse in this country ! ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MAN!
THAT was excellent.
You sure told them.
I'm GLAD that you are helping to ELEVATE the \_level\_ or DIScourse in this country!!!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205140</id>
	<title>Re:No problem, give them all the subsidies they wa</title>
	<author>MozeeToby</author>
	<datestamp>1259009220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't work, they'll just look to get the money some other way, probably through shell companies whose 'services' are used by the company accepting the subsidies.  Those kinds of limits can't be codified with our system of laws.  If the law could simply say what it meant in clear english and leave the interpretation up to the courts it might be possible, but expensive lawyers will always find a way out of vuagely written laws.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't work , they 'll just look to get the money some other way , probably through shell companies whose 'services ' are used by the company accepting the subsidies .
Those kinds of limits ca n't be codified with our system of laws .
If the law could simply say what it meant in clear english and leave the interpretation up to the courts it might be possible , but expensive lawyers will always find a way out of vuagely written laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't work, they'll just look to get the money some other way, probably through shell companies whose 'services' are used by the company accepting the subsidies.
Those kinds of limits can't be codified with our system of laws.
If the law could simply say what it meant in clear english and leave the interpretation up to the courts it might be possible, but expensive lawyers will always find a way out of vuagely written laws.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204740</id>
	<title>Re:Fascism, DUH</title>
	<author>TemporalBeing</author>
	<datestamp>1259006760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>America is, and pretty much always has been, a fascist nation. I think the recent bailouts of the banking giants and car manufacturers should prove that it is fascist now; Andrew Jackson himself was fighting fascism when it came to central banking back in the 1830's. War and weapons define the American economy. Boeing and Raytheon and Xi could be considered the ultimate achievement of which a fascist society is capable.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Then why is ovrer 2/3rds of the American economy based on CONSUMER spending[1] instead of WAR or WEAPONS? And of that, most of it is spent by women.[2] (See the numerous articles on ecomomics and how they are all worrying about women not spending more but vowing to spend the same and live more frugal lives for the evidence.)
<br> <br>
Not to mention that the USA spends only about 4\% GDP on Defense[3] at the national level last I was aware.
<br> <br>
Hmm...not much of a leg to stand on for your claims, now is there?
<br> <br>
[1]<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2009-10-11-consumer-spending\_N.htm" title="usatoday.com">2009-10-11 USA Today Article</a> [usatoday.com] <br>
[2]<a href="http://www.inc.com/articles/2003/01/25019.html" title="inc.com">dated article on consumer spending (2003), but matches what I've recently read in the last month per the point</a> [inc.com]
<a href="http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/business/s\_649816.html" title="pittsburghlive.com">and a more recent article on women being frugal</a> [pittsburghlive.com].
<a href="http://www.bostonherald.com/business/womens/general/view.bg?articleid=1169220" title="bostonherald.com">and yet another article on frugal consumerism in the USA</a> [bostonherald.com]
<br>
[3]<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military\_budget\_of\_the\_United\_States" title="wikipedia.org">Wikipedia USA Military budget - with reference links</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>America is , and pretty much always has been , a fascist nation .
I think the recent bailouts of the banking giants and car manufacturers should prove that it is fascist now ; Andrew Jackson himself was fighting fascism when it came to central banking back in the 1830 's .
War and weapons define the American economy .
Boeing and Raytheon and Xi could be considered the ultimate achievement of which a fascist society is capable .
Then why is ovrer 2/3rds of the American economy based on CONSUMER spending [ 1 ] instead of WAR or WEAPONS ?
And of that , most of it is spent by women .
[ 2 ] ( See the numerous articles on ecomomics and how they are all worrying about women not spending more but vowing to spend the same and live more frugal lives for the evidence .
) Not to mention that the USA spends only about 4 \ % GDP on Defense [ 3 ] at the national level last I was aware .
Hmm...not much of a leg to stand on for your claims , now is there ?
[ 1 ] 2009-10-11 USA Today Article [ usatoday.com ] [ 2 ] dated article on consumer spending ( 2003 ) , but matches what I 've recently read in the last month per the point [ inc.com ] and a more recent article on women being frugal [ pittsburghlive.com ] .
and yet another article on frugal consumerism in the USA [ bostonherald.com ] [ 3 ] Wikipedia USA Military budget - with reference links [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>America is, and pretty much always has been, a fascist nation.
I think the recent bailouts of the banking giants and car manufacturers should prove that it is fascist now; Andrew Jackson himself was fighting fascism when it came to central banking back in the 1830's.
War and weapons define the American economy.
Boeing and Raytheon and Xi could be considered the ultimate achievement of which a fascist society is capable.
Then why is ovrer 2/3rds of the American economy based on CONSUMER spending[1] instead of WAR or WEAPONS?
And of that, most of it is spent by women.
[2] (See the numerous articles on ecomomics and how they are all worrying about women not spending more but vowing to spend the same and live more frugal lives for the evidence.
)
 
Not to mention that the USA spends only about 4\% GDP on Defense[3] at the national level last I was aware.
Hmm...not much of a leg to stand on for your claims, now is there?
[1]2009-10-11 USA Today Article [usatoday.com] 
[2]dated article on consumer spending (2003), but matches what I've recently read in the last month per the point [inc.com]
and a more recent article on women being frugal [pittsburghlive.com].
and yet another article on frugal consumerism in the USA [bostonherald.com]

[3]Wikipedia USA Military budget - with reference links [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30211646</id>
	<title>Re:I see what they did there...</title>
	<author>Fred\_A</author>
	<datestamp>1259064240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So please stop espousing the idiotic opinion that somehow giving the rich more money means the rest of us get more money.</p></div><p>Of course we get more money. Give the super rich money and it flows among the others of the caste.</p><p>Wait, did you mean "the rest of us peons" ? You mean you can still afford to hook up to the Internet ?<br>I need to have a word with a few politicians.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So please stop espousing the idiotic opinion that somehow giving the rich more money means the rest of us get more money.Of course we get more money .
Give the super rich money and it flows among the others of the caste.Wait , did you mean " the rest of us peons " ?
You mean you can still afford to hook up to the Internet ? I need to have a word with a few politicians .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So please stop espousing the idiotic opinion that somehow giving the rich more money means the rest of us get more money.Of course we get more money.
Give the super rich money and it flows among the others of the caste.Wait, did you mean "the rest of us peons" ?
You mean you can still afford to hook up to the Internet ?I need to have a word with a few politicians.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203730</id>
	<title>I have no idea what's in the report</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259001060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But since both AT&amp;T and Verizon object to its conclusions I don't need to read about it. Now I know the report must be right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But since both AT&amp;T and Verizon object to its conclusions I do n't need to read about it .
Now I know the report must be right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But since both AT&amp;T and Verizon object to its conclusions I don't need to read about it.
Now I know the report must be right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30209014</id>
	<title>Re:OT: Your illogical sig</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258985460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, it only undoes your moderation if you moderate first and then post.  Works just fine for me if I post something and THEN moderate, as long as I don't post again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it only undoes your moderation if you moderate first and then post .
Works just fine for me if I post something and THEN moderate , as long as I do n't post again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, it only undoes your moderation if you moderate first and then post.
Works just fine for me if I post something and THEN moderate, as long as I don't post again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204454</id>
	<title>Re:More competition needed</title>
	<author>JesseMcDonald</author>
	<datestamp>1259005080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not sure that you can have worse service than no service. There are many areas that only allow one (or a few) providers. If that one provider chooses not to give service to a part of it's service area, those people are screwed.</p></div><p>They're not saying that there will be fewer providers; the number of providers can't become negative, after all. Rather, they're saying that forced line-sharing would increase the minimum price at which any provider would be willing to operate in that area, since they must anticipate an even lower profit-margin than they would currently receive without the line-sharing requirement.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Maximum innovation will come from maximum competition. It's called capitalism, but it always seemed to me that capitalists usually want the least amount of competition possible.</p></div><p>Find me <em>anyone</em> who likes dealing with competition&mdash;regardless of their ideology&mdash;and you might begin to have a point. High prices are just as much a product of competition (on the buyer's side) as low prices are a product of competition among sellers. What is important is the <em>balance</em> between supply and demand, a balance which is distorted whenever coercion is brought to bear on either side. It is just as harmful to manufacture competition through coercive regulations, subsidies, etc. as it is to inhibit competition through coercive monopolies. Moreover, the negative effects are cumulative; one does not cancel out the other.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure that you can have worse service than no service .
There are many areas that only allow one ( or a few ) providers .
If that one provider chooses not to give service to a part of it 's service area , those people are screwed.They 're not saying that there will be fewer providers ; the number of providers ca n't become negative , after all .
Rather , they 're saying that forced line-sharing would increase the minimum price at which any provider would be willing to operate in that area , since they must anticipate an even lower profit-margin than they would currently receive without the line-sharing requirement.Maximum innovation will come from maximum competition .
It 's called capitalism , but it always seemed to me that capitalists usually want the least amount of competition possible.Find me anyone who likes dealing with competition    regardless of their ideology    and you might begin to have a point .
High prices are just as much a product of competition ( on the buyer 's side ) as low prices are a product of competition among sellers .
What is important is the balance between supply and demand , a balance which is distorted whenever coercion is brought to bear on either side .
It is just as harmful to manufacture competition through coercive regulations , subsidies , etc .
as it is to inhibit competition through coercive monopolies .
Moreover , the negative effects are cumulative ; one does not cancel out the other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure that you can have worse service than no service.
There are many areas that only allow one (or a few) providers.
If that one provider chooses not to give service to a part of it's service area, those people are screwed.They're not saying that there will be fewer providers; the number of providers can't become negative, after all.
Rather, they're saying that forced line-sharing would increase the minimum price at which any provider would be willing to operate in that area, since they must anticipate an even lower profit-margin than they would currently receive without the line-sharing requirement.Maximum innovation will come from maximum competition.
It's called capitalism, but it always seemed to me that capitalists usually want the least amount of competition possible.Find me anyone who likes dealing with competition—regardless of their ideology—and you might begin to have a point.
High prices are just as much a product of competition (on the buyer's side) as low prices are a product of competition among sellers.
What is important is the balance between supply and demand, a balance which is distorted whenever coercion is brought to bear on either side.
It is just as harmful to manufacture competition through coercive regulations, subsidies, etc.
as it is to inhibit competition through coercive monopolies.
Moreover, the negative effects are cumulative; one does not cancel out the other.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30211314</id>
	<title>Re:More competition needed</title>
	<author>Jedi Alec</author>
	<datestamp>1259060880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You left out the option some other parts of the world use...like all the utilities in western europe.</p><p>Split the infrastructure and the product. Infrastructure is owned by the public, through a number of ways. Companies offering a product can use the existing cables/pipes/whatever to bring their product to market.</p><p>So far we've done it for the phonelines, electricity and gas, and it looks like cable is going to go next. I can already pick from over a dozen ISP's through DSL, wonder how many more will pop up when there's cable infrastructure capable of handling a 100Mbit pipe ready and waiting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You left out the option some other parts of the world use...like all the utilities in western europe.Split the infrastructure and the product .
Infrastructure is owned by the public , through a number of ways .
Companies offering a product can use the existing cables/pipes/whatever to bring their product to market.So far we 've done it for the phonelines , electricity and gas , and it looks like cable is going to go next .
I can already pick from over a dozen ISP 's through DSL , wonder how many more will pop up when there 's cable infrastructure capable of handling a 100Mbit pipe ready and waiting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You left out the option some other parts of the world use...like all the utilities in western europe.Split the infrastructure and the product.
Infrastructure is owned by the public, through a number of ways.
Companies offering a product can use the existing cables/pipes/whatever to bring their product to market.So far we've done it for the phonelines, electricity and gas, and it looks like cable is going to go next.
I can already pick from over a dozen ISP's through DSL, wonder how many more will pop up when there's cable infrastructure capable of handling a 100Mbit pipe ready and waiting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205166</id>
	<title>Re:I see what they did there...</title>
	<author>FooAtWFU</author>
	<datestamp>1259009280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You have a point that really rich people like doing things that get them money, and not necessarily helping everyone else out.
It's true. They shouldn't be given free handouts. I agree.
<p>
At the same time, though, a lot of the time people extend that anti-rich-people attitude, and think of anything that isn't actively soaking the rich for every penny possible as "welfare". Do consider: Rich people who want more money invest it. They can afford to take risks and spend a lot of money on something that might not work out (but if it did, it would be immensely valuable - to them and to the nation). But when you tax their returns, then there's quite a bit of money that they're not-going-to-make, and they're not going to invest in new businesses and other risky enterprises. That represents a real drag on the economy (and also, for that matter, on your own 401(k), since they won't be as interested in buying the same stocks you're holding - instead, they'll more likely hold gold, or government bonds, or something. Cheaper financing for the government's debt is not entirely useless, but it's hardly the road to prosperity for the US as a nation.)
</p><p>
You and I on Slashdot are probably rich enough that we're insulated from the worst of this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have a point that really rich people like doing things that get them money , and not necessarily helping everyone else out .
It 's true .
They should n't be given free handouts .
I agree .
At the same time , though , a lot of the time people extend that anti-rich-people attitude , and think of anything that is n't actively soaking the rich for every penny possible as " welfare " .
Do consider : Rich people who want more money invest it .
They can afford to take risks and spend a lot of money on something that might not work out ( but if it did , it would be immensely valuable - to them and to the nation ) .
But when you tax their returns , then there 's quite a bit of money that they 're not-going-to-make , and they 're not going to invest in new businesses and other risky enterprises .
That represents a real drag on the economy ( and also , for that matter , on your own 401 ( k ) , since they wo n't be as interested in buying the same stocks you 're holding - instead , they 'll more likely hold gold , or government bonds , or something .
Cheaper financing for the government 's debt is not entirely useless , but it 's hardly the road to prosperity for the US as a nation .
) You and I on Slashdot are probably rich enough that we 're insulated from the worst of this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have a point that really rich people like doing things that get them money, and not necessarily helping everyone else out.
It's true.
They shouldn't be given free handouts.
I agree.
At the same time, though, a lot of the time people extend that anti-rich-people attitude, and think of anything that isn't actively soaking the rich for every penny possible as "welfare".
Do consider: Rich people who want more money invest it.
They can afford to take risks and spend a lot of money on something that might not work out (but if it did, it would be immensely valuable - to them and to the nation).
But when you tax their returns, then there's quite a bit of money that they're not-going-to-make, and they're not going to invest in new businesses and other risky enterprises.
That represents a real drag on the economy (and also, for that matter, on your own 401(k), since they won't be as interested in buying the same stocks you're holding - instead, they'll more likely hold gold, or government bonds, or something.
Cheaper financing for the government's debt is not entirely useless, but it's hardly the road to prosperity for the US as a nation.
)

You and I on Slashdot are probably rich enough that we're insulated from the worst of this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30206190</id>
	<title>Re:Fascism, DUH</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1258971840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ooops.  I insulted the paradise that is the European Socialist Union, and now all the socialists are up in arms.  Well first off, Sweden and Noray are RICH countries which is why, like Saudi Arabia, they can easily afford to spend tons on welfare programs.  We in the United States don't have oil wealth.  We can't afford it.</p><p>As for the other countries, here are the uncomfortable facts:</p><p><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/\_8rpY5fQK-UQ/Sa4HLlt1VDI/AAAAAAAAGEE/agwEIiIOxEg/s400/debt.png" title="blogspot.com">http://4.bp.blogspot.com/\_8rpY5fQK-UQ/Sa4HLlt1VDI/AAAAAAAAGEE/agwEIiIOxEg/s400/debt.png</a> [blogspot.com]<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy\_of\_the\_European\_Union#Economies\_of\_member\_states" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy\_of\_the\_European\_Union#Economies\_of\_member\_states</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ooops .
I insulted the paradise that is the European Socialist Union , and now all the socialists are up in arms .
Well first off , Sweden and Noray are RICH countries which is why , like Saudi Arabia , they can easily afford to spend tons on welfare programs .
We in the United States do n't have oil wealth .
We ca n't afford it.As for the other countries , here are the uncomfortable facts : http : //4.bp.blogspot.com/ \ _8rpY5fQK-UQ/Sa4HLlt1VDI/AAAAAAAAGEE/agwEIiIOxEg/s400/debt.png [ blogspot.com ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy \ _of \ _the \ _European \ _Union # Economies \ _of \ _member \ _states [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ooops.
I insulted the paradise that is the European Socialist Union, and now all the socialists are up in arms.
Well first off, Sweden and Noray are RICH countries which is why, like Saudi Arabia, they can easily afford to spend tons on welfare programs.
We in the United States don't have oil wealth.
We can't afford it.As for the other countries, here are the uncomfortable facts:http://4.bp.blogspot.com/\_8rpY5fQK-UQ/Sa4HLlt1VDI/AAAAAAAAGEE/agwEIiIOxEg/s400/debt.png [blogspot.com]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy\_of\_the\_European\_Union#Economies\_of\_member\_states [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30207812</id>
	<title>Re:More competition needed</title>
	<author>FrozenGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1258978260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Water and sewage may not be the best example.<br> <br>First off, things generally don't change quickly in the water and sewage industry.  Telcos, on the other hand, frequently deal with new protocols and new services.<br> <br>Second, at least here in Winnipeg, the city-owned water and sewage service has been heavily under-maintaining the system for decades.  As a result, the frequency and magnitude of broken water lines has been steadily climbing over the past few years, and we do not have anything close to adequate sewage treatment facilities (i.e. don't go swimming in the local rivers).  I'm not certain I want a local telco that doesn't maintain and expand the facilities with an eye to the future.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Water and sewage may not be the best example .
First off , things generally do n't change quickly in the water and sewage industry .
Telcos , on the other hand , frequently deal with new protocols and new services .
Second , at least here in Winnipeg , the city-owned water and sewage service has been heavily under-maintaining the system for decades .
As a result , the frequency and magnitude of broken water lines has been steadily climbing over the past few years , and we do not have anything close to adequate sewage treatment facilities ( i.e .
do n't go swimming in the local rivers ) .
I 'm not certain I want a local telco that does n't maintain and expand the facilities with an eye to the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Water and sewage may not be the best example.
First off, things generally don't change quickly in the water and sewage industry.
Telcos, on the other hand, frequently deal with new protocols and new services.
Second, at least here in Winnipeg, the city-owned water and sewage service has been heavily under-maintaining the system for decades.
As a result, the frequency and magnitude of broken water lines has been steadily climbing over the past few years, and we do not have anything close to adequate sewage treatment facilities (i.e.
don't go swimming in the local rivers).
I'm not certain I want a local telco that doesn't maintain and expand the facilities with an eye to the future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30206640</id>
	<title>Re:Separate ISP's businesses</title>
	<author>mrchaotica</author>
	<datestamp>1258973640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So then the problem was the <em>government-mandated pricing</em>, not the functional separation of companies! Or in other words, what was tried in 1996 was essentially something <em>completely different</em> than what the grandparent post proposes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So then the problem was the government-mandated pricing , not the functional separation of companies !
Or in other words , what was tried in 1996 was essentially something completely different than what the grandparent post proposes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So then the problem was the government-mandated pricing, not the functional separation of companies!
Or in other words, what was tried in 1996 was essentially something completely different than what the grandparent post proposes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30207222</id>
	<title>Ooo, ooo, me sir, me sir!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258975920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What kind of people rail against giving welfare to the poor but have no problem giving it to the rich?</i></p><p>The rich!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What kind of people rail against giving welfare to the poor but have no problem giving it to the rich ? The rich !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What kind of people rail against giving welfare to the poor but have no problem giving it to the rich?The rich!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205476</id>
	<title>Re:More competition needed</title>
	<author>Mean Variance</author>
	<datestamp>1258968240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When was the last time you thought about your municipal water and sewer service?</p></div><p>Hot, hot, hot<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... off the presses at the New York Times.</p><p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/us/23sewer.html" title="nytimes.com">Many sewer systems are overwhelmed, spilling excrement, medical waste and chemicals into waterways</a> [nytimes.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When was the last time you thought about your municipal water and sewer service ? Hot , hot , hot ... off the presses at the New York Times.Many sewer systems are overwhelmed , spilling excrement , medical waste and chemicals into waterways [ nytimes.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When was the last time you thought about your municipal water and sewer service?Hot, hot, hot ... off the presses at the New York Times.Many sewer systems are overwhelmed, spilling excrement, medical waste and chemicals into waterways [nytimes.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203884</id>
	<title>Re:Fascism, DUH</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259001960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Welfare-Warfare state creates several social classes which are entirely repugnant to the free man. The first class is, of course, the welfare class. America is awfully egalitarian when it comes to putting down social discontent with money - ghetto blacks and rural trailer trash whites share a common "benefactor" in the central government which does not discriminate racially like so many others. Our government <b>funds</b> its most likely opposition, and the same inner city blacks that suffer under the jackboot of ghetto "justice" fail to realize it is tied to the monthly handouts they receive.<br> <br>
Another repulsive class is the corporate parasite. Worse than the welfare bums, the corporate bums leverage the power of the state to protect their marketshare, patent basic inventions to stifle competition, and use lawyers to crush competitors even when they are in the right. This class is worse in many ways, as it is full of rabid conformist, pseudo-intellectuals who suckle on the teet of the state secondhand.<br> <br>
Then there is the intelligentsia that it installs in state-funded institution and rewards with state-funded grants for as long as the perpetrator blindly supports the state in all its doings. Paul Krugman, wrong about everything so far, is that you? Victor Davis Hanson? The big names of stupid and wrong congregate there.<br> <br>
Then there's the people freedom-lovers should despise the most: the yes men, the intellectual conformists, the button-smashing neanderthals who don't even <b>benefit</b> from the state they blindly support. They are in evidence everywhere in Slashdot, and they are set off most by new ideas. If these conformist robo-drones don't have a ready-made script for something you say, they become immediately hostile as thinking is totally anathema to them. They are generally well educated, or at least, good at repeating things they hear on the idiot box or at school or the inane ramblings of their elected officials. They can seem deceptively intelligent, but don't be fooled - is a router a sophisticated processor just because it transmits processed bits? Certainly not. They hear, repeat, and smash down anything they haven't heard and repeated before.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Welfare-Warfare state creates several social classes which are entirely repugnant to the free man .
The first class is , of course , the welfare class .
America is awfully egalitarian when it comes to putting down social discontent with money - ghetto blacks and rural trailer trash whites share a common " benefactor " in the central government which does not discriminate racially like so many others .
Our government funds its most likely opposition , and the same inner city blacks that suffer under the jackboot of ghetto " justice " fail to realize it is tied to the monthly handouts they receive .
Another repulsive class is the corporate parasite .
Worse than the welfare bums , the corporate bums leverage the power of the state to protect their marketshare , patent basic inventions to stifle competition , and use lawyers to crush competitors even when they are in the right .
This class is worse in many ways , as it is full of rabid conformist , pseudo-intellectuals who suckle on the teet of the state secondhand .
Then there is the intelligentsia that it installs in state-funded institution and rewards with state-funded grants for as long as the perpetrator blindly supports the state in all its doings .
Paul Krugman , wrong about everything so far , is that you ?
Victor Davis Hanson ?
The big names of stupid and wrong congregate there .
Then there 's the people freedom-lovers should despise the most : the yes men , the intellectual conformists , the button-smashing neanderthals who do n't even benefit from the state they blindly support .
They are in evidence everywhere in Slashdot , and they are set off most by new ideas .
If these conformist robo-drones do n't have a ready-made script for something you say , they become immediately hostile as thinking is totally anathema to them .
They are generally well educated , or at least , good at repeating things they hear on the idiot box or at school or the inane ramblings of their elected officials .
They can seem deceptively intelligent , but do n't be fooled - is a router a sophisticated processor just because it transmits processed bits ?
Certainly not .
They hear , repeat , and smash down anything they have n't heard and repeated before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Welfare-Warfare state creates several social classes which are entirely repugnant to the free man.
The first class is, of course, the welfare class.
America is awfully egalitarian when it comes to putting down social discontent with money - ghetto blacks and rural trailer trash whites share a common "benefactor" in the central government which does not discriminate racially like so many others.
Our government funds its most likely opposition, and the same inner city blacks that suffer under the jackboot of ghetto "justice" fail to realize it is tied to the monthly handouts they receive.
Another repulsive class is the corporate parasite.
Worse than the welfare bums, the corporate bums leverage the power of the state to protect their marketshare, patent basic inventions to stifle competition, and use lawyers to crush competitors even when they are in the right.
This class is worse in many ways, as it is full of rabid conformist, pseudo-intellectuals who suckle on the teet of the state secondhand.
Then there is the intelligentsia that it installs in state-funded institution and rewards with state-funded grants for as long as the perpetrator blindly supports the state in all its doings.
Paul Krugman, wrong about everything so far, is that you?
Victor Davis Hanson?
The big names of stupid and wrong congregate there.
Then there's the people freedom-lovers should despise the most: the yes men, the intellectual conformists, the button-smashing neanderthals who don't even benefit from the state they blindly support.
They are in evidence everywhere in Slashdot, and they are set off most by new ideas.
If these conformist robo-drones don't have a ready-made script for something you say, they become immediately hostile as thinking is totally anathema to them.
They are generally well educated, or at least, good at repeating things they hear on the idiot box or at school or the inane ramblings of their elected officials.
They can seem deceptively intelligent, but don't be fooled - is a router a sophisticated processor just because it transmits processed bits?
Certainly not.
They hear, repeat, and smash down anything they haven't heard and repeated before.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203704</id>
	<title>Re:I see what they did there...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259000940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Honestly, how can you even consider associating this with G.W. Bush?  Have you been under a rock for an entire year now?  Or was it just so much a habit of always saying "Bush" when you disagreed with something and actually meant Obama?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , how can you even consider associating this with G.W .
Bush ? Have you been under a rock for an entire year now ?
Or was it just so much a habit of always saying " Bush " when you disagreed with something and actually meant Obama ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, how can you even consider associating this with G.W.
Bush?  Have you been under a rock for an entire year now?
Or was it just so much a habit of always saying "Bush" when you disagreed with something and actually meant Obama?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204286</id>
	<title>Re:I see what they did there...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259004240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Meaning, of course, that they want more.</p><p><i>The study does does nothing but promote the lead author's 'own extreme views,' warns a response from Verizon Wireless.</i></p><p>I'd say Verison's greedy views are the extremist views. Why is it that so-called "conservatives" are against welfare, unless it's the rich that are on the recievinig end of the welfare? Isn't this what they call "communism"?</p><p>Hypocrisy reigns supreme.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Meaning , of course , that they want more.The study does does nothing but promote the lead author 's 'own extreme views, ' warns a response from Verizon Wireless.I 'd say Verison 's greedy views are the extremist views .
Why is it that so-called " conservatives " are against welfare , unless it 's the rich that are on the recievinig end of the welfare ?
Is n't this what they call " communism " ? Hypocrisy reigns supreme .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meaning, of course, that they want more.The study does does nothing but promote the lead author's 'own extreme views,' warns a response from Verizon Wireless.I'd say Verison's greedy views are the extremist views.
Why is it that so-called "conservatives" are against welfare, unless it's the rich that are on the recievinig end of the welfare?
Isn't this what they call "communism"?Hypocrisy reigns supreme.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204322</id>
	<title>Re:I see what they did there...</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1259004420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Bush administration gave this welfare to the telcos, not the Obama administration. The telcos are trying to get more corporate welfare from Obama. Blame Obama for giving my tax money to the telcos when he actually does it, not when the telcos are standing on the corner with a cardboard sign that reads "will lobby for cash".</p><p>For Christ's sake, man, open your eyes. Bush was a disaster for this country; indeed, for the entire world -- for everyone but the corporates and the uber-rich.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Bush administration gave this welfare to the telcos , not the Obama administration .
The telcos are trying to get more corporate welfare from Obama .
Blame Obama for giving my tax money to the telcos when he actually does it , not when the telcos are standing on the corner with a cardboard sign that reads " will lobby for cash " .For Christ 's sake , man , open your eyes .
Bush was a disaster for this country ; indeed , for the entire world -- for everyone but the corporates and the uber-rich .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Bush administration gave this welfare to the telcos, not the Obama administration.
The telcos are trying to get more corporate welfare from Obama.
Blame Obama for giving my tax money to the telcos when he actually does it, not when the telcos are standing on the corner with a cardboard sign that reads "will lobby for cash".For Christ's sake, man, open your eyes.
Bush was a disaster for this country; indeed, for the entire world -- for everyone but the corporates and the uber-rich.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30207798</id>
	<title>You're confusing the facts</title>
	<author>George\_Ou</author>
	<datestamp>1258978200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Looking at federal spending, almost all of the subsidy is being wasted on high cost areas for telephone service where we use USF taxes to subsidize $16K per year per phone line <a href="http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/11/americans-are-subsidizing-16834-phone-lines/" title="digitalsociety.org">http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/11/americans-are-subsidizing-16834-phone-lines/</a> [digitalsociety.org].  USF subsidies work out to about $7B and some of it goes to libraries, schools, and low income families.  However, around $5B is mostly wasted on high cost funds.<br> <br>

The tax payer subsidies are not funding the "Internet industry" as you claim.  The telecom and cable industry spends about $50B in private investments per year on communications infrastructure and that's 10 times higher than the USF subsidies.  The stimulus funding that was approved this year was only $7.2 billion, but it came with so many strings attached that no large Telco or cable company took up the offer.<br> <br>

It's unfortunate that the Slashdot community is going to rate up unsubstantiated claims as "informative".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looking at federal spending , almost all of the subsidy is being wasted on high cost areas for telephone service where we use USF taxes to subsidize $ 16K per year per phone line http : //www.digitalsociety.org/2009/11/americans-are-subsidizing-16834-phone-lines/ [ digitalsociety.org ] .
USF subsidies work out to about $ 7B and some of it goes to libraries , schools , and low income families .
However , around $ 5B is mostly wasted on high cost funds .
The tax payer subsidies are not funding the " Internet industry " as you claim .
The telecom and cable industry spends about $ 50B in private investments per year on communications infrastructure and that 's 10 times higher than the USF subsidies .
The stimulus funding that was approved this year was only $ 7.2 billion , but it came with so many strings attached that no large Telco or cable company took up the offer .
It 's unfortunate that the Slashdot community is going to rate up unsubstantiated claims as " informative " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looking at federal spending, almost all of the subsidy is being wasted on high cost areas for telephone service where we use USF taxes to subsidize $16K per year per phone line http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/11/americans-are-subsidizing-16834-phone-lines/ [digitalsociety.org].
USF subsidies work out to about $7B and some of it goes to libraries, schools, and low income families.
However, around $5B is mostly wasted on high cost funds.
The tax payer subsidies are not funding the "Internet industry" as you claim.
The telecom and cable industry spends about $50B in private investments per year on communications infrastructure and that's 10 times higher than the USF subsidies.
The stimulus funding that was approved this year was only $7.2 billion, but it came with so many strings attached that no large Telco or cable company took up the offer.
It's unfortunate that the Slashdot community is going to rate up unsubstantiated claims as "informative".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30206430</id>
	<title>Verizon != Verizon Wireless</title>
	<author>sabt-pestnu</author>
	<datestamp>1258972800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...As the good salesfolk at the Verizon Wireless store were swift to tell me.  I can't stop in at the Verizon Wireless store to pay my Verizon FIOS bill.  Verizon Wireless is only majority-owned by Verizon.  Verizon itself is the one with FIOS, not Verizon Wireless.</p><p>The summary, and the article it points to, quoted the response as from "Verizon Wireless".  Looking at the filing itself, "Name of Filer" is "Verizon and Verizon Wireless".  I'm guessing that "Verizon Wireless" looks cooler in print.  I think it would have been more accurate, though, to simply say "Verizon" in this case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...As the good salesfolk at the Verizon Wireless store were swift to tell me .
I ca n't stop in at the Verizon Wireless store to pay my Verizon FIOS bill .
Verizon Wireless is only majority-owned by Verizon .
Verizon itself is the one with FIOS , not Verizon Wireless.The summary , and the article it points to , quoted the response as from " Verizon Wireless " .
Looking at the filing itself , " Name of Filer " is " Verizon and Verizon Wireless " .
I 'm guessing that " Verizon Wireless " looks cooler in print .
I think it would have been more accurate , though , to simply say " Verizon " in this case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...As the good salesfolk at the Verizon Wireless store were swift to tell me.
I can't stop in at the Verizon Wireless store to pay my Verizon FIOS bill.
Verizon Wireless is only majority-owned by Verizon.
Verizon itself is the one with FIOS, not Verizon Wireless.The summary, and the article it points to, quoted the response as from "Verizon Wireless".
Looking at the filing itself, "Name of Filer" is "Verizon and Verizon Wireless".
I'm guessing that "Verizon Wireless" looks cooler in print.
I think it would have been more accurate, though, to simply say "Verizon" in this case.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205742</id>
	<title>We need a strong FCC mandate and we need it NOW</title>
	<author>mrnick</author>
	<datestamp>1258969680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Getting my starts in IT at the beginning of the commercialization of the Internet and being present to see what it has developed into makes me think that the wireless telecommunications companies are off their bloody rocker!</p><p>One major difference from the Internet and the many wireless networks (3g, etc) out there is that the Internet through purchase or peering agreements are all interconnected.  If the United States could dismantle the current wireless networks in place and deploy the strategically there would be no coverage gaps, even in the most rural of areas.</p><p>It makes neither technological or economical sense to maintain so many separate networks.</p><p>I don't know the answer, because I wouldn't want the government running the infrastructure, but if maintaining the wireless infrastructure was done by a single entity and if that entity was not any of the wireless service providers communications would be much better in this country.</p><p>There should be one unified wireless network that would sell its services for a fee, regulated by the FCC/FTC.</p><p>Wireless service providers would pay for access to this network and then resell it to consumers, with value added services.</p><p>Cell phone manufactures should not be allowed to be Wireless service providers.  All phones made should work with any Wireless service provider.  No locking, etc.  Wireless service providers could still sell discounted phones in trade for contract commitments but there would never be a scenario like exists today such that a phone manufacture, like Apple, inc, could restrict their phone to work with one wireless provider.</p><p>Fees should be regulated to keep illegal price fixing that happens with all the providers today.</p><p>How providers bill would be up to them but real unlimited, all you can eat, service with absolutely NO restrictions.  This is what happened with the Internet.  It was once where you paid for a set number of hours per month or you paid by the minute as you used it.  But, economies of scale and demand from the consumers forced the providers to go with unlimited service.</p><p>Today, even when a providers sells you an unlimited data plan, like AT&amp;T forces you to do if you use an iPhone it is not unlimited.  AT&amp;T restricts tethering and if the feel you have used an excess amount of data they will terminate your account.  So, it's not unlimited it just has a secret limit.  This would have never been tollerated with Internet service.</p><p>True unlimited cell service is inevitable I wish they would go ahead and accept it.  Unlimited minutes, Unlimited texts, Unlimited data, no restrictions on tethering, etc..</p><p>The day is coming when we won't buy broadband because everyone will have their own personal Internet connection with them, in their pocket (their phone).</p><p>I just hope I live through the cell wars to see it.  The economics work for the same reason unlimited Internet accounts are profitable.  That's because of averages of large numbers.  I might use tons of data and talk minutes but my dad, my sister, my roomate don't.  It averages out.</p><p>All this bickering is making my head hurt.  Consumers should group together and sue for being overcharged and price fixing in the cell industry.</p><p>ppfffffttt...</p><p>Nick Powers</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Getting my starts in IT at the beginning of the commercialization of the Internet and being present to see what it has developed into makes me think that the wireless telecommunications companies are off their bloody rocker ! One major difference from the Internet and the many wireless networks ( 3g , etc ) out there is that the Internet through purchase or peering agreements are all interconnected .
If the United States could dismantle the current wireless networks in place and deploy the strategically there would be no coverage gaps , even in the most rural of areas.It makes neither technological or economical sense to maintain so many separate networks.I do n't know the answer , because I would n't want the government running the infrastructure , but if maintaining the wireless infrastructure was done by a single entity and if that entity was not any of the wireless service providers communications would be much better in this country.There should be one unified wireless network that would sell its services for a fee , regulated by the FCC/FTC.Wireless service providers would pay for access to this network and then resell it to consumers , with value added services.Cell phone manufactures should not be allowed to be Wireless service providers .
All phones made should work with any Wireless service provider .
No locking , etc .
Wireless service providers could still sell discounted phones in trade for contract commitments but there would never be a scenario like exists today such that a phone manufacture , like Apple , inc , could restrict their phone to work with one wireless provider.Fees should be regulated to keep illegal price fixing that happens with all the providers today.How providers bill would be up to them but real unlimited , all you can eat , service with absolutely NO restrictions .
This is what happened with the Internet .
It was once where you paid for a set number of hours per month or you paid by the minute as you used it .
But , economies of scale and demand from the consumers forced the providers to go with unlimited service.Today , even when a providers sells you an unlimited data plan , like AT&amp;T forces you to do if you use an iPhone it is not unlimited .
AT&amp;T restricts tethering and if the feel you have used an excess amount of data they will terminate your account .
So , it 's not unlimited it just has a secret limit .
This would have never been tollerated with Internet service.True unlimited cell service is inevitable I wish they would go ahead and accept it .
Unlimited minutes , Unlimited texts , Unlimited data , no restrictions on tethering , etc..The day is coming when we wo n't buy broadband because everyone will have their own personal Internet connection with them , in their pocket ( their phone ) .I just hope I live through the cell wars to see it .
The economics work for the same reason unlimited Internet accounts are profitable .
That 's because of averages of large numbers .
I might use tons of data and talk minutes but my dad , my sister , my roomate do n't .
It averages out.All this bickering is making my head hurt .
Consumers should group together and sue for being overcharged and price fixing in the cell industry.ppfffffttt...Nick Powers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Getting my starts in IT at the beginning of the commercialization of the Internet and being present to see what it has developed into makes me think that the wireless telecommunications companies are off their bloody rocker!One major difference from the Internet and the many wireless networks (3g, etc) out there is that the Internet through purchase or peering agreements are all interconnected.
If the United States could dismantle the current wireless networks in place and deploy the strategically there would be no coverage gaps, even in the most rural of areas.It makes neither technological or economical sense to maintain so many separate networks.I don't know the answer, because I wouldn't want the government running the infrastructure, but if maintaining the wireless infrastructure was done by a single entity and if that entity was not any of the wireless service providers communications would be much better in this country.There should be one unified wireless network that would sell its services for a fee, regulated by the FCC/FTC.Wireless service providers would pay for access to this network and then resell it to consumers, with value added services.Cell phone manufactures should not be allowed to be Wireless service providers.
All phones made should work with any Wireless service provider.
No locking, etc.
Wireless service providers could still sell discounted phones in trade for contract commitments but there would never be a scenario like exists today such that a phone manufacture, like Apple, inc, could restrict their phone to work with one wireless provider.Fees should be regulated to keep illegal price fixing that happens with all the providers today.How providers bill would be up to them but real unlimited, all you can eat, service with absolutely NO restrictions.
This is what happened with the Internet.
It was once where you paid for a set number of hours per month or you paid by the minute as you used it.
But, economies of scale and demand from the consumers forced the providers to go with unlimited service.Today, even when a providers sells you an unlimited data plan, like AT&amp;T forces you to do if you use an iPhone it is not unlimited.
AT&amp;T restricts tethering and if the feel you have used an excess amount of data they will terminate your account.
So, it's not unlimited it just has a secret limit.
This would have never been tollerated with Internet service.True unlimited cell service is inevitable I wish they would go ahead and accept it.
Unlimited minutes, Unlimited texts, Unlimited data, no restrictions on tethering, etc..The day is coming when we won't buy broadband because everyone will have their own personal Internet connection with them, in their pocket (their phone).I just hope I live through the cell wars to see it.
The economics work for the same reason unlimited Internet accounts are profitable.
That's because of averages of large numbers.
I might use tons of data and talk minutes but my dad, my sister, my roomate don't.
It averages out.All this bickering is making my head hurt.
Consumers should group together and sue for being overcharged and price fixing in the cell industry.ppfffffttt...Nick Powers</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203860</id>
	<title>No problem, give them all the subsidies they want</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259001840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just require companies taking subsidies to cap wages including top executives at 100K a year and bonuses at 5K a year. They'll squeal like pigs and no one will touch the subsidies. Something similar happened with the bailout money. When there were no strings attached everyone wanted their share. Once they started insisting on wage caps suddenly no one needed the money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just require companies taking subsidies to cap wages including top executives at 100K a year and bonuses at 5K a year .
They 'll squeal like pigs and no one will touch the subsidies .
Something similar happened with the bailout money .
When there were no strings attached everyone wanted their share .
Once they started insisting on wage caps suddenly no one needed the money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just require companies taking subsidies to cap wages including top executives at 100K a year and bonuses at 5K a year.
They'll squeal like pigs and no one will touch the subsidies.
Something similar happened with the bailout money.
When there were no strings attached everyone wanted their share.
Once they started insisting on wage caps suddenly no one needed the money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205204</id>
	<title>Re:Separate ISP's businesses</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1259009580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This was tried in 1996, with the government mandating the cost of service - what part 1 had to pay part 2.  Problem was, the mandated payment wasn't really enough to cover it.  Works out fine when it is all just different parts of the same company.</p><p>Doesn't work at all for third-party company that wants to offer DSL service.  Third party company starts out thinking they are getting a great deal and many investors flock to the new company with visions of how profitable it is going to be.  DSL service explodes, at least it did in Northern Illinois.</p><p>Well, it turns out that with just about anything if you get a price that is too low to actually make anyone want to do the work, they end up not wanting to do the work.  End result was that Ameritech (former Illinois Bell company that owned the lines) would get a request to put a different company's DSLAM into their CO and they would sit on it for a while hoping it would just go away.  If it did get installed, provisioning the lines to connect to it would be made dead last priority - as you would expect.</p><p>Having the State set the price for the service was a disaster.  We had $14.95 DSL plans but you could never get connected.  There were 10 different companies offering DSL service in some places - except they couldn't get their equipment installed.  I believe some sanity returned four or five years ago and the idea of DSL competition at state-mandated fee levels was pretty much discarded.</p><p>I believe state-mandated T1 pricing is still in effect, however, and it results in some very odd market distortions.  General rule that seems to apply is whenever anyone puts their thumb on the scale, be it the butcher or the governer, it turns out bad for the consumer in the end.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This was tried in 1996 , with the government mandating the cost of service - what part 1 had to pay part 2 .
Problem was , the mandated payment was n't really enough to cover it .
Works out fine when it is all just different parts of the same company.Does n't work at all for third-party company that wants to offer DSL service .
Third party company starts out thinking they are getting a great deal and many investors flock to the new company with visions of how profitable it is going to be .
DSL service explodes , at least it did in Northern Illinois.Well , it turns out that with just about anything if you get a price that is too low to actually make anyone want to do the work , they end up not wanting to do the work .
End result was that Ameritech ( former Illinois Bell company that owned the lines ) would get a request to put a different company 's DSLAM into their CO and they would sit on it for a while hoping it would just go away .
If it did get installed , provisioning the lines to connect to it would be made dead last priority - as you would expect.Having the State set the price for the service was a disaster .
We had $ 14.95 DSL plans but you could never get connected .
There were 10 different companies offering DSL service in some places - except they could n't get their equipment installed .
I believe some sanity returned four or five years ago and the idea of DSL competition at state-mandated fee levels was pretty much discarded.I believe state-mandated T1 pricing is still in effect , however , and it results in some very odd market distortions .
General rule that seems to apply is whenever anyone puts their thumb on the scale , be it the butcher or the governer , it turns out bad for the consumer in the end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was tried in 1996, with the government mandating the cost of service - what part 1 had to pay part 2.
Problem was, the mandated payment wasn't really enough to cover it.
Works out fine when it is all just different parts of the same company.Doesn't work at all for third-party company that wants to offer DSL service.
Third party company starts out thinking they are getting a great deal and many investors flock to the new company with visions of how profitable it is going to be.
DSL service explodes, at least it did in Northern Illinois.Well, it turns out that with just about anything if you get a price that is too low to actually make anyone want to do the work, they end up not wanting to do the work.
End result was that Ameritech (former Illinois Bell company that owned the lines) would get a request to put a different company's DSLAM into their CO and they would sit on it for a while hoping it would just go away.
If it did get installed, provisioning the lines to connect to it would be made dead last priority - as you would expect.Having the State set the price for the service was a disaster.
We had $14.95 DSL plans but you could never get connected.
There were 10 different companies offering DSL service in some places - except they couldn't get their equipment installed.
I believe some sanity returned four or five years ago and the idea of DSL competition at state-mandated fee levels was pretty much discarded.I believe state-mandated T1 pricing is still in effect, however, and it results in some very odd market distortions.
General rule that seems to apply is whenever anyone puts their thumb on the scale, be it the butcher or the governer, it turns out bad for the consumer in the end.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30209326</id>
	<title>Re:Fascism, DUH</title>
	<author>Cimexus</author>
	<datestamp>1258988160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Australia. The only OECD country that DIDN'T go into recession due to the economic meltdown<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the so called miracle economy of the last 10-15 years. Mostly due to the Australian banking/financial sector having far greater regulation than the US (and hence there being nowhere near as many bad loans and general funny money in the financial system).</p><p>AU should meet most Americans' criteria for being a welfare state - considerably higher taxes than the US but also considerably more services that are Government-provided as opposed to private. (If you consider Canada a welfare state than you'd have to consider Australia one, they are pretty similar).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Australia .
The only OECD country that DID N'T go into recession due to the economic meltdown ... the so called miracle economy of the last 10-15 years .
Mostly due to the Australian banking/financial sector having far greater regulation than the US ( and hence there being nowhere near as many bad loans and general funny money in the financial system ) .AU should meet most Americans ' criteria for being a welfare state - considerably higher taxes than the US but also considerably more services that are Government-provided as opposed to private .
( If you consider Canada a welfare state than you 'd have to consider Australia one , they are pretty similar ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Australia.
The only OECD country that DIDN'T go into recession due to the economic meltdown ... the so called miracle economy of the last 10-15 years.
Mostly due to the Australian banking/financial sector having far greater regulation than the US (and hence there being nowhere near as many bad loans and general funny money in the financial system).AU should meet most Americans' criteria for being a welfare state - considerably higher taxes than the US but also considerably more services that are Government-provided as opposed to private.
(If you consider Canada a welfare state than you'd have to consider Australia one, they are pretty similar).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30206086</id>
	<title>Re:Separate ISP's businesses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258971360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was similar everywhere. In Atlanta, you had multiple options from multiple DSL companies. I was going with Telocity at the time, because while they weren't the cheapest, they had a TOS that basically said, "Here is your network connection, don't do anything illegal or that will damage the network."</p><p>Three times I ordered through them, and the process was the same every time:</p><p>1. Order through Telocity. Telocity tells you that they will ship you the DSL modem and that it will take 30-45 days to get the line provisioned (they had to submit the work order to BellSouth)</p><p>2. 5-7 days later, Telocity modem arrives in the mail. "Coincidentally", mailbox and front door are suddenly spammed with BellSouth DSL advertisements that were never there before, in particular because BellSouth said they didn't cover that area (yet).</p><p>3. 23-28 or so days later, all phone service dies. Call BellSouth on another phone to complain. Next two days, spend hours explaining to customer service rep that your line is dead, etc. Finally quote FCC 911 service regulations to them to get the point across that the line is dead. Two hours later, service technician shows up and finds that the wires are disconnected in the block's phone box.</p><p>4. Hook up Telocity modem, enjoy DSL!</p><p>This happened every single time. Telocity themselves would apologize when you ordered, admitting that it would take a while because they were at the mercy of BellSouth to get the lines provisioned.</p><p>The cream of the crop was when a roommate at the time ran into a BellSouth tech working in the phone box while we had been trying to get BS to look at the line. He kindly took one look at what was going on, and determined that, most likely, tech 1 was sent to the phone box to disconnect the non-copper pair that we were on, and either "forgot" to connect the copper pair for DSL, or else there was a separate work order for, you know, hooking up the copper pair that was right there in the box and that guy hadn't gotten there yet. He hooked it up and 10 minutes later, we had DSL.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was similar everywhere .
In Atlanta , you had multiple options from multiple DSL companies .
I was going with Telocity at the time , because while they were n't the cheapest , they had a TOS that basically said , " Here is your network connection , do n't do anything illegal or that will damage the network .
" Three times I ordered through them , and the process was the same every time : 1 .
Order through Telocity .
Telocity tells you that they will ship you the DSL modem and that it will take 30-45 days to get the line provisioned ( they had to submit the work order to BellSouth ) 2 .
5-7 days later , Telocity modem arrives in the mail .
" Coincidentally " , mailbox and front door are suddenly spammed with BellSouth DSL advertisements that were never there before , in particular because BellSouth said they did n't cover that area ( yet ) .3 .
23-28 or so days later , all phone service dies .
Call BellSouth on another phone to complain .
Next two days , spend hours explaining to customer service rep that your line is dead , etc .
Finally quote FCC 911 service regulations to them to get the point across that the line is dead .
Two hours later , service technician shows up and finds that the wires are disconnected in the block 's phone box.4 .
Hook up Telocity modem , enjoy DSL ! This happened every single time .
Telocity themselves would apologize when you ordered , admitting that it would take a while because they were at the mercy of BellSouth to get the lines provisioned.The cream of the crop was when a roommate at the time ran into a BellSouth tech working in the phone box while we had been trying to get BS to look at the line .
He kindly took one look at what was going on , and determined that , most likely , tech 1 was sent to the phone box to disconnect the non-copper pair that we were on , and either " forgot " to connect the copper pair for DSL , or else there was a separate work order for , you know , hooking up the copper pair that was right there in the box and that guy had n't gotten there yet .
He hooked it up and 10 minutes later , we had DSL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was similar everywhere.
In Atlanta, you had multiple options from multiple DSL companies.
I was going with Telocity at the time, because while they weren't the cheapest, they had a TOS that basically said, "Here is your network connection, don't do anything illegal or that will damage the network.
"Three times I ordered through them, and the process was the same every time:1.
Order through Telocity.
Telocity tells you that they will ship you the DSL modem and that it will take 30-45 days to get the line provisioned (they had to submit the work order to BellSouth)2.
5-7 days later, Telocity modem arrives in the mail.
"Coincidentally", mailbox and front door are suddenly spammed with BellSouth DSL advertisements that were never there before, in particular because BellSouth said they didn't cover that area (yet).3.
23-28 or so days later, all phone service dies.
Call BellSouth on another phone to complain.
Next two days, spend hours explaining to customer service rep that your line is dead, etc.
Finally quote FCC 911 service regulations to them to get the point across that the line is dead.
Two hours later, service technician shows up and finds that the wires are disconnected in the block's phone box.4.
Hook up Telocity modem, enjoy DSL!This happened every single time.
Telocity themselves would apologize when you ordered, admitting that it would take a while because they were at the mercy of BellSouth to get the lines provisioned.The cream of the crop was when a roommate at the time ran into a BellSouth tech working in the phone box while we had been trying to get BS to look at the line.
He kindly took one look at what was going on, and determined that, most likely, tech 1 was sent to the phone box to disconnect the non-copper pair that we were on, and either "forgot" to connect the copper pair for DSL, or else there was a separate work order for, you know, hooking up the copper pair that was right there in the box and that guy hadn't gotten there yet.
He hooked it up and 10 minutes later, we had DSL.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204476</id>
	<title>If we're looking at economics...</title>
	<author>weston</author>
	<datestamp>1259005260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>if the economics do not currently support a single provider, they are even less likely to support multiple providers.</i></p><p>Invoking economic arguments may not be the most self-interested thing for Verizon to do, because if we're doing that, we may as well admit telecom tends towards <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural\_monopoly" title="wikipedia.org">natural monopoly</a> [wikipedia.org] and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network\_effect" title="wikipedia.org">network effects</a> [wikipedia.org], and that having telecom infrastructure managed by self-interested private parties isn't ever going to produce the same kind of yields that markets do by competition in other sectors.</p><p>The fact that the Verizon argument quoted above is correct doesn't even help their case. It's another brick in the wall: in contrast to areas where they tend towards anticompetitive, it's hard for private telecom to serve some markets profitably at all. We and they have sortof accepted this as a balance, and that's one way to do it, but there's always this level of finagling discussed in the post. It might be better to just stop messing around and move to private service over public infrastructure common carriage if we really think of telecom as a utility or public good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if the economics do not currently support a single provider , they are even less likely to support multiple providers.Invoking economic arguments may not be the most self-interested thing for Verizon to do , because if we 're doing that , we may as well admit telecom tends towards natural monopoly [ wikipedia.org ] and network effects [ wikipedia.org ] , and that having telecom infrastructure managed by self-interested private parties is n't ever going to produce the same kind of yields that markets do by competition in other sectors.The fact that the Verizon argument quoted above is correct does n't even help their case .
It 's another brick in the wall : in contrast to areas where they tend towards anticompetitive , it 's hard for private telecom to serve some markets profitably at all .
We and they have sortof accepted this as a balance , and that 's one way to do it , but there 's always this level of finagling discussed in the post .
It might be better to just stop messing around and move to private service over public infrastructure common carriage if we really think of telecom as a utility or public good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if the economics do not currently support a single provider, they are even less likely to support multiple providers.Invoking economic arguments may not be the most self-interested thing for Verizon to do, because if we're doing that, we may as well admit telecom tends towards natural monopoly [wikipedia.org] and network effects [wikipedia.org], and that having telecom infrastructure managed by self-interested private parties isn't ever going to produce the same kind of yields that markets do by competition in other sectors.The fact that the Verizon argument quoted above is correct doesn't even help their case.
It's another brick in the wall: in contrast to areas where they tend towards anticompetitive, it's hard for private telecom to serve some markets profitably at all.
We and they have sortof accepted this as a balance, and that's one way to do it, but there's always this level of finagling discussed in the post.
It might be better to just stop messing around and move to private service over public infrastructure common carriage if we really think of telecom as a utility or public good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205558</id>
	<title>Re:More competition needed</title>
	<author>wonkavader</author>
	<datestamp>1258968720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On number 2, note that a lot of regulation that the ILECs claim to hate, they wrote themselves.  Regulation makes things difficult and exists as a barrier to competition, which is important to keeping a monopoly.</p><p>We should throw out all the current regulations and come up with some simple ones which work to demand good coverage an truth in billing (rather than the insane spaghettiwork of laws we currently have) so as to make telcos behave as we want without making it difficult to become a telco.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On number 2 , note that a lot of regulation that the ILECs claim to hate , they wrote themselves .
Regulation makes things difficult and exists as a barrier to competition , which is important to keeping a monopoly.We should throw out all the current regulations and come up with some simple ones which work to demand good coverage an truth in billing ( rather than the insane spaghettiwork of laws we currently have ) so as to make telcos behave as we want without making it difficult to become a telco .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On number 2, note that a lot of regulation that the ILECs claim to hate, they wrote themselves.
Regulation makes things difficult and exists as a barrier to competition, which is important to keeping a monopoly.We should throw out all the current regulations and come up with some simple ones which work to demand good coverage an truth in billing (rather than the insane spaghettiwork of laws we currently have) so as to make telcos behave as we want without making it difficult to become a telco.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203810</id>
	<title>here is a nice little quote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259001480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...direct government encouragement can facilitate deployment and drive penetration." </p><p>
&nbsp; </p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...that's what she said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...direct government encouragement can facilitate deployment and drive penetration .
"   ...that 's what she said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...direct government encouragement can facilitate deployment and drive penetration.
" 
   ...that's what she said.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204714</id>
	<title>Re:Fascism, DUH</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1259006580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not aware of ANY welfare state that is in good shape economically.  The EU, Canada, Japan... all are pretty much in shit creek when it comes to extreme debt and devaluing currency.   Some are worse than the US (Iceland, UK), others are better (Germany, Poland), but all are on the teetering on the brink.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not aware of ANY welfare state that is in good shape economically .
The EU , Canada , Japan... all are pretty much in shit creek when it comes to extreme debt and devaluing currency .
Some are worse than the US ( Iceland , UK ) , others are better ( Germany , Poland ) , but all are on the teetering on the brink .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not aware of ANY welfare state that is in good shape economically.
The EU, Canada, Japan... all are pretty much in shit creek when it comes to extreme debt and devaluing currency.
Some are worse than the US (Iceland, UK), others are better (Germany, Poland), but all are on the teetering on the brink.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30210404</id>
	<title>Re:you're a middling propagandist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259001240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And you, sir, have the art of combat rhetoric down solid, it's pretty doubt inducing stuff</p><p>but you undermine your statement's verisimilitude when you base it on inconsequential oppositions</p><p>good combat rhetoric never lies, it just pulls at any threads left hanging. So, for instance, if your prey naively skips a few mental steps (this not being a dissertation, and that being only a forum), what you want to is to question that gap as ruthlessly as possible, while stacking thinly veiled ad hominems and other similarly dishonorable rhetorical attacks to bring as much disregard to him as possible.</p><p>Because while you might know you are wrong, you consider that your victory is not in being right, but rather in seeming to be right, and convincingly so. So what you want at this very point is to antagonize the other viewpoint as much as possible, and polarize the opinion as much as possible. "Nothing is a continuum, everything is black or white, you are black, I am right, and I'll make sure to seem to define it that way for everyone to understand before I go on making my argument" should be your main talking point.</p><p>And so you start by accusing him of spouting "inflammatory rhetoric". Nice jab. However, all he did was voice his opinion, within (as far as I can see) all defined bounds of civil discussion, based on proposed observed facts which we are all free to examine and accept or reject. The next step is denying any proposed truth from the opponent, a step you deal with swiftly by defining his data points as "a poor set of facts". However, as far as I know, Andrew Jackson did fight centralized private banking, which does seem to fit in the hypothetical proposition that one could equate fascism (and many other isms) and corporatism. Similarly, "the recent bailouts of the banking giants and car manufacturers" also seem to document or "prove that it is fascist now", wouldn't you agree? Or do you not qualify the ransacking of public funds and endebtment of future generations to the tune of some 700$bn+ for corporate profit as fascist? Where, then, do you draw the line? Anyways, these previous observations are sound, although you are free to have some (insert weasel word: peculiar, unique, twisted,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...) personal understanding of their implications.</p><p>Then you imply that his speech is propaganda, spreading false truths. You pick a single meaning, in this case "ALWAYS", quoting it out of context ("pretty much always") and distort it to assign it much more importance than it had in the original text. And you twist the argument, assigning intent to its speaker ("look, he's a demagogue!"), further trying to ridicule him rather than his argument. And to facilitate the attack, rather than criticizing the particular argument you are discussing, you refute it by proxy through the assigned intentions (bunching together so many argumentative fallacies together that I balk at the idea of listing them all, so numerous are the examples such as red herring, appeal to ridicule, intentional fallacy, reification, spotlight fallacy, and probably others I missed).</p><p>Now you've made an enemy image of your rhetorical opponent, time to go on for the kill. You've found your strategy to pummel him. Jump at it!</p><p>So you suggest that a demagogue should rather argue that other argument of the mythological past which you've denigrated as naive (that I'd agree), notwithstanding the fact that the GP <i>didn't support these views</i>.<br>What he did argue was that the observed historical actions of the american government should be interpreted as a demonstration of tendency towards fascism, a statement that many might agree with. He goes on to state that he thinks Constitutional boundaries are a good solution to limit the system. He doesn't say that we HAVE TO go back to the founding father's implementation. We do know that it has endured through centuries of assaults on its fabric, yet it has survived to protect us (with a last dying breath, I think) through these hard times. Maybe we could apply the scientifi</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And you , sir , have the art of combat rhetoric down solid , it 's pretty doubt inducing stuffbut you undermine your statement 's verisimilitude when you base it on inconsequential oppositionsgood combat rhetoric never lies , it just pulls at any threads left hanging .
So , for instance , if your prey naively skips a few mental steps ( this not being a dissertation , and that being only a forum ) , what you want to is to question that gap as ruthlessly as possible , while stacking thinly veiled ad hominems and other similarly dishonorable rhetorical attacks to bring as much disregard to him as possible.Because while you might know you are wrong , you consider that your victory is not in being right , but rather in seeming to be right , and convincingly so .
So what you want at this very point is to antagonize the other viewpoint as much as possible , and polarize the opinion as much as possible .
" Nothing is a continuum , everything is black or white , you are black , I am right , and I 'll make sure to seem to define it that way for everyone to understand before I go on making my argument " should be your main talking point.And so you start by accusing him of spouting " inflammatory rhetoric " .
Nice jab .
However , all he did was voice his opinion , within ( as far as I can see ) all defined bounds of civil discussion , based on proposed observed facts which we are all free to examine and accept or reject .
The next step is denying any proposed truth from the opponent , a step you deal with swiftly by defining his data points as " a poor set of facts " .
However , as far as I know , Andrew Jackson did fight centralized private banking , which does seem to fit in the hypothetical proposition that one could equate fascism ( and many other isms ) and corporatism .
Similarly , " the recent bailouts of the banking giants and car manufacturers " also seem to document or " prove that it is fascist now " , would n't you agree ?
Or do you not qualify the ransacking of public funds and endebtment of future generations to the tune of some 700 $ bn + for corporate profit as fascist ?
Where , then , do you draw the line ?
Anyways , these previous observations are sound , although you are free to have some ( insert weasel word : peculiar , unique , twisted , ... ) personal understanding of their implications.Then you imply that his speech is propaganda , spreading false truths .
You pick a single meaning , in this case " ALWAYS " , quoting it out of context ( " pretty much always " ) and distort it to assign it much more importance than it had in the original text .
And you twist the argument , assigning intent to its speaker ( " look , he 's a demagogue !
" ) , further trying to ridicule him rather than his argument .
And to facilitate the attack , rather than criticizing the particular argument you are discussing , you refute it by proxy through the assigned intentions ( bunching together so many argumentative fallacies together that I balk at the idea of listing them all , so numerous are the examples such as red herring , appeal to ridicule , intentional fallacy , reification , spotlight fallacy , and probably others I missed ) .Now you 've made an enemy image of your rhetorical opponent , time to go on for the kill .
You 've found your strategy to pummel him .
Jump at it ! So you suggest that a demagogue should rather argue that other argument of the mythological past which you 've denigrated as naive ( that I 'd agree ) , notwithstanding the fact that the GP did n't support these views.What he did argue was that the observed historical actions of the american government should be interpreted as a demonstration of tendency towards fascism , a statement that many might agree with .
He goes on to state that he thinks Constitutional boundaries are a good solution to limit the system .
He does n't say that we HAVE TO go back to the founding father 's implementation .
We do know that it has endured through centuries of assaults on its fabric , yet it has survived to protect us ( with a last dying breath , I think ) through these hard times .
Maybe we could apply the scientifi</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you, sir, have the art of combat rhetoric down solid, it's pretty doubt inducing stuffbut you undermine your statement's verisimilitude when you base it on inconsequential oppositionsgood combat rhetoric never lies, it just pulls at any threads left hanging.
So, for instance, if your prey naively skips a few mental steps (this not being a dissertation, and that being only a forum), what you want to is to question that gap as ruthlessly as possible, while stacking thinly veiled ad hominems and other similarly dishonorable rhetorical attacks to bring as much disregard to him as possible.Because while you might know you are wrong, you consider that your victory is not in being right, but rather in seeming to be right, and convincingly so.
So what you want at this very point is to antagonize the other viewpoint as much as possible, and polarize the opinion as much as possible.
"Nothing is a continuum, everything is black or white, you are black, I am right, and I'll make sure to seem to define it that way for everyone to understand before I go on making my argument" should be your main talking point.And so you start by accusing him of spouting "inflammatory rhetoric".
Nice jab.
However, all he did was voice his opinion, within (as far as I can see) all defined bounds of civil discussion, based on proposed observed facts which we are all free to examine and accept or reject.
The next step is denying any proposed truth from the opponent, a step you deal with swiftly by defining his data points as "a poor set of facts".
However, as far as I know, Andrew Jackson did fight centralized private banking, which does seem to fit in the hypothetical proposition that one could equate fascism (and many other isms) and corporatism.
Similarly, "the recent bailouts of the banking giants and car manufacturers" also seem to document or "prove that it is fascist now", wouldn't you agree?
Or do you not qualify the ransacking of public funds and endebtment of future generations to the tune of some 700$bn+ for corporate profit as fascist?
Where, then, do you draw the line?
Anyways, these previous observations are sound, although you are free to have some (insert weasel word: peculiar, unique, twisted, ...) personal understanding of their implications.Then you imply that his speech is propaganda, spreading false truths.
You pick a single meaning, in this case "ALWAYS", quoting it out of context ("pretty much always") and distort it to assign it much more importance than it had in the original text.
And you twist the argument, assigning intent to its speaker ("look, he's a demagogue!
"), further trying to ridicule him rather than his argument.
And to facilitate the attack, rather than criticizing the particular argument you are discussing, you refute it by proxy through the assigned intentions (bunching together so many argumentative fallacies together that I balk at the idea of listing them all, so numerous are the examples such as red herring, appeal to ridicule, intentional fallacy, reification, spotlight fallacy, and probably others I missed).Now you've made an enemy image of your rhetorical opponent, time to go on for the kill.
You've found your strategy to pummel him.
Jump at it!So you suggest that a demagogue should rather argue that other argument of the mythological past which you've denigrated as naive (that I'd agree), notwithstanding the fact that the GP didn't support these views.What he did argue was that the observed historical actions of the american government should be interpreted as a demonstration of tendency towards fascism, a statement that many might agree with.
He goes on to state that he thinks Constitutional boundaries are a good solution to limit the system.
He doesn't say that we HAVE TO go back to the founding father's implementation.
We do know that it has endured through centuries of assaults on its fabric, yet it has survived to protect us (with a last dying breath, I think) through these hard times.
Maybe we could apply the scientifi</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205886</id>
	<title>Re:Fascism, DUH</title>
	<author>mister\_playboy</author>
	<datestamp>1258970400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would be more accurate to say that corporatism rose to power in the period 1870-1913 has been the dominant force in America since ~1913.  It was nowhere near as entrenched before that.  After all, Jackson <b>was</b> able to fight off the idea of a central bank, and the Sherman anti-trust act was passed in 1890 because there were still actually enough people opposed to big business to vote for it.  How likely would such a bill pass the legislature today?</p><p>The creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 was the real start of the USA becoming a corporatist state.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be more accurate to say that corporatism rose to power in the period 1870-1913 has been the dominant force in America since ~ 1913 .
It was nowhere near as entrenched before that .
After all , Jackson was able to fight off the idea of a central bank , and the Sherman anti-trust act was passed in 1890 because there were still actually enough people opposed to big business to vote for it .
How likely would such a bill pass the legislature today ? The creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 was the real start of the USA becoming a corporatist state .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be more accurate to say that corporatism rose to power in the period 1870-1913 has been the dominant force in America since ~1913.
It was nowhere near as entrenched before that.
After all, Jackson was able to fight off the idea of a central bank, and the Sherman anti-trust act was passed in 1890 because there were still actually enough people opposed to big business to vote for it.
How likely would such a bill pass the legislature today?The creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 was the real start of the USA becoming a corporatist state.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30209006</id>
	<title>Re:I see what they did there...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258985340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Empiricism?</p><p>No thanks, I'm Austrian.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Empiricism ? No thanks , I 'm Austrian .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Empiricism?No thanks, I'm Austrian.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204120</id>
	<title>Subsidies are bad, even for the recipient</title>
	<author>NevarMore</author>
	<datestamp>1259003220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From Snatch - "You got to deal with him. You just got to make sure you don't end up owing him. Cause then you're in his debt. Which means, your in his pocket. And once you're in that, you ain't ever coming out."</p><p>It applies to mobsters and the government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From Snatch - " You got to deal with him .
You just got to make sure you do n't end up owing him .
Cause then you 're in his debt .
Which means , your in his pocket .
And once you 're in that , you ai n't ever coming out .
" It applies to mobsters and the government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From Snatch - "You got to deal with him.
You just got to make sure you don't end up owing him.
Cause then you're in his debt.
Which means, your in his pocket.
And once you're in that, you ain't ever coming out.
"It applies to mobsters and the government.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203748</id>
	<title>Must be doing something right</title>
	<author>deprecated</author>
	<datestamp>1259001240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the big telcos hate it, I like it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the big telcos hate it , I like it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the big telcos hate it, I like it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204284</id>
	<title>Separate ISP's businesses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259004180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. Separate the ISPs into separate entities. Phone service in one company, internet service in another, television in a third.<br>
2. Separate the ownership of the infrastructure into another company<br>
3. Make the three companies from part 1 pay company from part 2 for access<br>
4. allow any other company access to part 2's lines for the same fee as it charges part 1 companies<br>
5. don't EVER allow them to merge again</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Separate the ISPs into separate entities .
Phone service in one company , internet service in another , television in a third .
2. Separate the ownership of the infrastructure into another company 3 .
Make the three companies from part 1 pay company from part 2 for access 4. allow any other company access to part 2 's lines for the same fee as it charges part 1 companies 5. do n't EVER allow them to merge again</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Separate the ISPs into separate entities.
Phone service in one company, internet service in another, television in a third.
2. Separate the ownership of the infrastructure into another company
3.
Make the three companies from part 1 pay company from part 2 for access
4. allow any other company access to part 2's lines for the same fee as it charges part 1 companies
5. don't EVER allow them to merge again</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205586</id>
	<title>Re:I see what they did there...</title>
	<author>djmartins</author>
	<datestamp>1258968900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Obama has already spent more money than Bush and he has been president for less than a year
and I am CERTAIN that the US and the world will be feeling the pain he causes for longer
than than you will even remember the name "Bush".....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama has already spent more money than Bush and he has been president for less than a year and I am CERTAIN that the US and the world will be feeling the pain he causes for longer than than you will even remember the name " Bush " .... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama has already spent more money than Bush and he has been president for less than a year
and I am CERTAIN that the US and the world will be feeling the pain he causes for longer
than than you will even remember the name "Bush".....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203912</id>
	<title>Re:Fascism, DUH</title>
	<author>AndersOSU</author>
	<datestamp>1259002080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we've always been a fascist nation, and we're the sole remaining superpower, the whole welfare-welfare state thing has a pretty good track record, huh?</p><p>The only quibble I have is that corporate welfare really only came into vogue with Reagan after our ideological rival, the soviet union's fate was pretty much sealed.  We should probably try to figure out if corporate pandering is good for an economy, like social safety nets are.  Personally, I'm putting my money on bad - and think we should return to a single welfare state.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we 've always been a fascist nation , and we 're the sole remaining superpower , the whole welfare-welfare state thing has a pretty good track record , huh ? The only quibble I have is that corporate welfare really only came into vogue with Reagan after our ideological rival , the soviet union 's fate was pretty much sealed .
We should probably try to figure out if corporate pandering is good for an economy , like social safety nets are .
Personally , I 'm putting my money on bad - and think we should return to a single welfare state .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we've always been a fascist nation, and we're the sole remaining superpower, the whole welfare-welfare state thing has a pretty good track record, huh?The only quibble I have is that corporate welfare really only came into vogue with Reagan after our ideological rival, the soviet union's fate was pretty much sealed.
We should probably try to figure out if corporate pandering is good for an economy, like social safety nets are.
Personally, I'm putting my money on bad - and think we should return to a single welfare state.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204402</id>
	<title>Re:I see what they did there...</title>
	<author>uuddlrlrab</author>
	<datestamp>1259004900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Paranoid\_Style\_in\_American\_Politics" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Paranoia much?</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Paranoia much ?
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Paranoia much?
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30207584</id>
	<title>Re:More competition needed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258977240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you dont pay you share of the line, your neibors will have to pay more.<br>And so you pay less in 30 year because the lines is already by your house?<br>Is that fair?</p><p>Yes gouvement mean paying for stuff you dont need. Others pay for stuff<br>you need but dont them self.</p><p>If you did not understand that yet you might as well go lives alone in the woods.<br>Then you wont have to pay for anyone. Or try moving to Liberia, i read there is<br>no gouvement there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you dont pay you share of the line , your neibors will have to pay more.And so you pay less in 30 year because the lines is already by your house ? Is that fair ? Yes gouvement mean paying for stuff you dont need .
Others pay for stuffyou need but dont them self.If you did not understand that yet you might as well go lives alone in the woods.Then you wont have to pay for anyone .
Or try moving to Liberia , i read there isno gouvement there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you dont pay you share of the line, your neibors will have to pay more.And so you pay less in 30 year because the lines is already by your house?Is that fair?Yes gouvement mean paying for stuff you dont need.
Others pay for stuffyou need but dont them self.If you did not understand that yet you might as well go lives alone in the woods.Then you wont have to pay for anyone.
Or try moving to Liberia, i read there isno gouvement there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204784</id>
	<title>Why more bandwidth?</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1259007000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
What do we need more bandwidth for?  Mostly to deliver HDTV video.?  All the high-bandwidth applications used by average consumers are video playback.  That doesn't deserve a single tax dollar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do we need more bandwidth for ?
Mostly to deliver HDTV video. ?
All the high-bandwidth applications used by average consumers are video playback .
That does n't deserve a single tax dollar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
What do we need more bandwidth for?
Mostly to deliver HDTV video.?
All the high-bandwidth applications used by average consumers are video playback.
That doesn't deserve a single tax dollar.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204204</id>
	<title>Simple way to end their lust for govt. handouts...</title>
	<author>brian0918</author>
	<datestamp>1259003700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>End the FCC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>End the FCC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>End the FCC.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203738</id>
	<title>Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259001120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm glad something finally brought AT&amp;T and Verizon together, I hate it when big corporations get in fights.  Also, fuck you both for calling the U.S. innovators in wireless broadband, we are in the middle of the pack at best in broadband services.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm glad something finally brought AT&amp;T and Verizon together , I hate it when big corporations get in fights .
Also , fuck you both for calling the U.S. innovators in wireless broadband , we are in the middle of the pack at best in broadband services .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm glad something finally brought AT&amp;T and Verizon together, I hate it when big corporations get in fights.
Also, fuck you both for calling the U.S. innovators in wireless broadband, we are in the middle of the pack at best in broadband services.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30213264</id>
	<title>Re:I see what they did there...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259075760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everything Americans don't like is called bloody communism. What in Gods name does handing out money to fat cat bastards have to do with nationalising all industry and destroying the wealth gap?</p><p>If anything this is corporatism. In truth, it's what capitalism has become.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everything Americans do n't like is called bloody communism .
What in Gods name does handing out money to fat cat bastards have to do with nationalising all industry and destroying the wealth gap ? If anything this is corporatism .
In truth , it 's what capitalism has become .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everything Americans don't like is called bloody communism.
What in Gods name does handing out money to fat cat bastards have to do with nationalising all industry and destroying the wealth gap?If anything this is corporatism.
In truth, it's what capitalism has become.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204616</id>
	<title>Re:Fascism, DUH</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259005980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>War and weapons define the American economy. Boeing and Raytheon and Xi could be considered the ultimate achievement of which a fascist society is capable.</i></p><p>When I was a child, President Eisenhower warned of the "Military Industrial Complex". Apparently we didn't heed his warning.</p><p><i>We should abandon this socialism</i></p><p>Corporatism is NOT socialism. Socialism is the polar opposite; socialism tries to make a better society (usually failing, however). It is facism, though. What kind of people rail against giving welfare to the poor but have no problem giving it to the rich?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>War and weapons define the American economy .
Boeing and Raytheon and Xi could be considered the ultimate achievement of which a fascist society is capable.When I was a child , President Eisenhower warned of the " Military Industrial Complex " .
Apparently we did n't heed his warning.We should abandon this socialismCorporatism is NOT socialism .
Socialism is the polar opposite ; socialism tries to make a better society ( usually failing , however ) .
It is facism , though .
What kind of people rail against giving welfare to the poor but have no problem giving it to the rich ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>War and weapons define the American economy.
Boeing and Raytheon and Xi could be considered the ultimate achievement of which a fascist society is capable.When I was a child, President Eisenhower warned of the "Military Industrial Complex".
Apparently we didn't heed his warning.We should abandon this socialismCorporatism is NOT socialism.
Socialism is the polar opposite; socialism tries to make a better society (usually failing, however).
It is facism, though.
What kind of people rail against giving welfare to the poor but have no problem giving it to the rich?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204150</id>
	<title>Re:Attn: Telcos</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1259003400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The taxpayer gave you Millions if not Billions back in the 90's for infrastructure upgrades</i></p><p>That's over <a href="http://www.newnetworks.com/broadbandscandals.htm" title="newnetworks.com">200 billion</a> [newnetworks.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The taxpayer gave you Millions if not Billions back in the 90 's for infrastructure upgradesThat 's over 200 billion [ newnetworks.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The taxpayer gave you Millions if not Billions back in the 90's for infrastructure upgradesThat's over 200 billion [newnetworks.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204438</id>
	<title>Re:here is a nice little quote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259005080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That sounds a little bit like "now bend over and take it like a man" to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That sounds a little bit like " now bend over and take it like a man " to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That sounds a little bit like "now bend over and take it like a man" to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204460</id>
	<title>Re:More competition needed</title>
	<author>Dog-Cow</author>
	<datestamp>1259005140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Capitalism is an economy driven by the non-Governmental ownership of property.  I am not sure what Competition has to do with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Capitalism is an economy driven by the non-Governmental ownership of property .
I am not sure what Competition has to do with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Capitalism is an economy driven by the non-Governmental ownership of property.
I am not sure what Competition has to do with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204406</id>
	<title>Re:More competition needed</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1259004900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not more regulation?</p><p>Telecom is by all appearances a natural monopoly, like other utilities. If you take AT&amp;T and Verizon and break them up into little pieces, in about 15 years you'll be right back to where we are now in this market. We know this because we tried breaking up Ma Bell, and within about 15 years we were back to an oligopoly (and probably would have been back to a monopoly had the FCC and FTC allowed it).</p><p>The ways to handle utilities, in order of my preference at least, based on the experiences of residents where each of these are applied:<br>1. Publicly owned and operated: This isn't perfect, but by all appearances can do a really good job. When was the last time you thought about your municipal water and sewer service? That's the sign of a well-run utility.<br>2. Heavily regulated monopoly: This is the electricity market in a lot of places. Again, far from perfect, but customers generally aren't bilked and service is usually pretty decent.<br>3. Less regulated oligopoly: This can be decidedly unpleasant if the various players realize that they can earn more by both of them bilking their customers rather than trying to take market share away from each other. The regulations can help prevent problems, but are generally less extensive than the regulated monopoly.<br>4. "Free-market" free-for-all: Think California during the electric deregulation. This typically is really an unregulated oligopoly.<br>5. Unregulated monopoly: Standard Oil et al. Typically, the monopoly makes a huge bundle of cash while all the customers (who often have little choice but to pay) get bilked.</p><p>Right now, telecommunications is sitting at option 3. AT&amp;T and Verizon would both love option 4, and whichever one is capable of buying out the other would really really like option 5, but for the purposes of serving customers you're typically better off with option 1 or 2.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not more regulation ? Telecom is by all appearances a natural monopoly , like other utilities .
If you take AT&amp;T and Verizon and break them up into little pieces , in about 15 years you 'll be right back to where we are now in this market .
We know this because we tried breaking up Ma Bell , and within about 15 years we were back to an oligopoly ( and probably would have been back to a monopoly had the FCC and FTC allowed it ) .The ways to handle utilities , in order of my preference at least , based on the experiences of residents where each of these are applied : 1 .
Publicly owned and operated : This is n't perfect , but by all appearances can do a really good job .
When was the last time you thought about your municipal water and sewer service ?
That 's the sign of a well-run utility.2 .
Heavily regulated monopoly : This is the electricity market in a lot of places .
Again , far from perfect , but customers generally are n't bilked and service is usually pretty decent.3 .
Less regulated oligopoly : This can be decidedly unpleasant if the various players realize that they can earn more by both of them bilking their customers rather than trying to take market share away from each other .
The regulations can help prevent problems , but are generally less extensive than the regulated monopoly.4 .
" Free-market " free-for-all : Think California during the electric deregulation .
This typically is really an unregulated oligopoly.5 .
Unregulated monopoly : Standard Oil et al .
Typically , the monopoly makes a huge bundle of cash while all the customers ( who often have little choice but to pay ) get bilked.Right now , telecommunications is sitting at option 3 .
AT&amp;T and Verizon would both love option 4 , and whichever one is capable of buying out the other would really really like option 5 , but for the purposes of serving customers you 're typically better off with option 1 or 2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not more regulation?Telecom is by all appearances a natural monopoly, like other utilities.
If you take AT&amp;T and Verizon and break them up into little pieces, in about 15 years you'll be right back to where we are now in this market.
We know this because we tried breaking up Ma Bell, and within about 15 years we were back to an oligopoly (and probably would have been back to a monopoly had the FCC and FTC allowed it).The ways to handle utilities, in order of my preference at least, based on the experiences of residents where each of these are applied:1.
Publicly owned and operated: This isn't perfect, but by all appearances can do a really good job.
When was the last time you thought about your municipal water and sewer service?
That's the sign of a well-run utility.2.
Heavily regulated monopoly: This is the electricity market in a lot of places.
Again, far from perfect, but customers generally aren't bilked and service is usually pretty decent.3.
Less regulated oligopoly: This can be decidedly unpleasant if the various players realize that they can earn more by both of them bilking their customers rather than trying to take market share away from each other.
The regulations can help prevent problems, but are generally less extensive than the regulated monopoly.4.
"Free-market" free-for-all: Think California during the electric deregulation.
This typically is really an unregulated oligopoly.5.
Unregulated monopoly: Standard Oil et al.
Typically, the monopoly makes a huge bundle of cash while all the customers (who often have little choice but to pay) get bilked.Right now, telecommunications is sitting at option 3.
AT&amp;T and Verizon would both love option 4, and whichever one is capable of buying out the other would really really like option 5, but for the purposes of serving customers you're typically better off with option 1 or 2.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203714</id>
	<title>Fascism, DUH</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259001000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."<br> <br>

America is, and pretty much always has been, a fascist nation. I think the recent bailouts of the banking giants and car manufacturers should prove that it is fascist now; Andrew Jackson himself was fighting fascism when it came to central banking back in the 1830's. War and weapons define the American economy. Boeing and Raytheon and Xi could be considered the ultimate achievement of which a fascist society is capable.<br> <br>

<a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/" title="lewrockwell.com" rel="nofollow">Lew Rockwell</a> [lewrockwell.com] is fond of referring to the central government as the Welfare-Warfare state. Our country has always defined itself through these two socialist conspiracies against mankind - welfare both corporate and personal, which stunts economic growth and creates a class of victims wholly dependent on the largess of their tormentor - and warfare, which is the extension of corporate power through the state in order to secure resources overseas. We should abandon this socialism, this corporatism, this fascism - and create a government that exists only within strict Constitutional boundaries. Nothing else will do for the good of mankind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power .
" America is , and pretty much always has been , a fascist nation .
I think the recent bailouts of the banking giants and car manufacturers should prove that it is fascist now ; Andrew Jackson himself was fighting fascism when it came to central banking back in the 1830 's .
War and weapons define the American economy .
Boeing and Raytheon and Xi could be considered the ultimate achievement of which a fascist society is capable .
Lew Rockwell [ lewrockwell.com ] is fond of referring to the central government as the Welfare-Warfare state .
Our country has always defined itself through these two socialist conspiracies against mankind - welfare both corporate and personal , which stunts economic growth and creates a class of victims wholly dependent on the largess of their tormentor - and warfare , which is the extension of corporate power through the state in order to secure resources overseas .
We should abandon this socialism , this corporatism , this fascism - and create a government that exists only within strict Constitutional boundaries .
Nothing else will do for the good of mankind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.
" 

America is, and pretty much always has been, a fascist nation.
I think the recent bailouts of the banking giants and car manufacturers should prove that it is fascist now; Andrew Jackson himself was fighting fascism when it came to central banking back in the 1830's.
War and weapons define the American economy.
Boeing and Raytheon and Xi could be considered the ultimate achievement of which a fascist society is capable.
Lew Rockwell [lewrockwell.com] is fond of referring to the central government as the Welfare-Warfare state.
Our country has always defined itself through these two socialist conspiracies against mankind - welfare both corporate and personal, which stunts economic growth and creates a class of victims wholly dependent on the largess of their tormentor - and warfare, which is the extension of corporate power through the state in order to secure resources overseas.
We should abandon this socialism, this corporatism, this fascism - and create a government that exists only within strict Constitutional boundaries.
Nothing else will do for the good of mankind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204004</id>
	<title>Re:Fascism, DUH</title>
	<author>jandrese</author>
	<datestamp>1259002560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>By this measure, aren't all governments, throughout time, fascist? <br>
<br>
Describing fascism as a government with business interests makes the definition far too broad to be useful, the only possible reason to do so is to invoke an emotional response at the very word fascist.</htmltext>
<tokenext>By this measure , are n't all governments , throughout time , fascist ?
Describing fascism as a government with business interests makes the definition far too broad to be useful , the only possible reason to do so is to invoke an emotional response at the very word fascist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By this measure, aren't all governments, throughout time, fascist?
Describing fascism as a government with business interests makes the definition far too broad to be useful, the only possible reason to do so is to invoke an emotional response at the very word fascist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205366</id>
	<title>Re:I see what they did there...</title>
	<author>iamsolidsnk</author>
	<datestamp>1258967580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know a troll when I see one.  Can you tell those guys that sign my paycheck to start actually raising salaries for the majority of their workforce, instead *just* for top management?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know a troll when I see one .
Can you tell those guys that sign my paycheck to start actually raising salaries for the majority of their workforce , instead * just * for top management ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know a troll when I see one.
Can you tell those guys that sign my paycheck to start actually raising salaries for the majority of their workforce, instead *just* for top management?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205186</id>
	<title>Re:Fascism, DUH</title>
	<author>Weeksauce</author>
	<datestamp>1259009460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anyone can just look at East Germany for how well welfare state's work out! A true bastion of corporate enterprise and success!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone can just look at East Germany for how well welfare state 's work out !
A true bastion of corporate enterprise and success !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone can just look at East Germany for how well welfare state's work out!
A true bastion of corporate enterprise and success!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30213638</id>
	<title>Re:More competition needed</title>
	<author>mdarksbane</author>
	<datestamp>1259077860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It really depends on the property and how far you are from the road. A localized septic system can be essentially right out back from the house. Mine was relatively expensive to put in because of local soil conditions - around $10k for the whole system, including a new tank. For me personally, it would probably be $5k-ish to connect to the county system - I would have happily done that instead of ripping up the whole backyard if I could have done it to begin with.</p><p>However, some of my neighbors live nearly a mile away from the main road, which is where the sewer system would be put in. I don't even want to think about how much it would cost them to tap into it. I have heard in other projects of it being upwards of $20k in some specific bad cases.</p><p>I'll always say - upgrades in infrastructure are good, forced upgrades are bad. I'm sure quite a few of my neighbors whose systems are getting up there in age would much prefer to tap into a county system instead of replacing their own. I would have if I had the option when I moved in. If they add it five years from now and require tap fees, though, I'm going to be screwed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It really depends on the property and how far you are from the road .
A localized septic system can be essentially right out back from the house .
Mine was relatively expensive to put in because of local soil conditions - around $ 10k for the whole system , including a new tank .
For me personally , it would probably be $ 5k-ish to connect to the county system - I would have happily done that instead of ripping up the whole backyard if I could have done it to begin with.However , some of my neighbors live nearly a mile away from the main road , which is where the sewer system would be put in .
I do n't even want to think about how much it would cost them to tap into it .
I have heard in other projects of it being upwards of $ 20k in some specific bad cases.I 'll always say - upgrades in infrastructure are good , forced upgrades are bad .
I 'm sure quite a few of my neighbors whose systems are getting up there in age would much prefer to tap into a county system instead of replacing their own .
I would have if I had the option when I moved in .
If they add it five years from now and require tap fees , though , I 'm going to be screwed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It really depends on the property and how far you are from the road.
A localized septic system can be essentially right out back from the house.
Mine was relatively expensive to put in because of local soil conditions - around $10k for the whole system, including a new tank.
For me personally, it would probably be $5k-ish to connect to the county system - I would have happily done that instead of ripping up the whole backyard if I could have done it to begin with.However, some of my neighbors live nearly a mile away from the main road, which is where the sewer system would be put in.
I don't even want to think about how much it would cost them to tap into it.
I have heard in other projects of it being upwards of $20k in some specific bad cases.I'll always say - upgrades in infrastructure are good, forced upgrades are bad.
I'm sure quite a few of my neighbors whose systems are getting up there in age would much prefer to tap into a county system instead of replacing their own.
I would have if I had the option when I moved in.
If they add it five years from now and require tap fees, though, I'm going to be screwed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30208394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204572</id>
	<title>Re:I see what they did there...</title>
	<author>fl!ptop</author>
	<datestamp>1259005680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Bush was a disaster for this country; indeed, for the entire world -- for everyone but the corporates and the uber-rich.</p></div></blockquote><p>fortunately, the 'corporates and uber-rich' are the ones who sign paychecks, so what's good for them winds up being good for everyone else too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bush was a disaster for this country ; indeed , for the entire world -- for everyone but the corporates and the uber-rich.fortunately , the 'corporates and uber-rich ' are the ones who sign paychecks , so what 's good for them winds up being good for everyone else too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bush was a disaster for this country; indeed, for the entire world -- for everyone but the corporates and the uber-rich.fortunately, the 'corporates and uber-rich' are the ones who sign paychecks, so what's good for them winds up being good for everyone else too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204562</id>
	<title>Not hard to predict</title>
	<author>kilodelta</author>
	<datestamp>1259005620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I knew that Verizon and at&amp;t would come out against this. They've been taking additional revenues from the various fees like FUSF, et al and just plowing it right back into the revenue and dividend stream.
<br> <br>
You think for a moment they're actually going to do something like build out broadband? Not on your life, unless of course the FCC mandates it. Then it'll be tied up in the courts for a decade or so. By the time a decision favoring the FCC ruling is made, there will already be an upstart and disruptive technology that fills the void, or do I need to remind everyone of the origins of MCI and Sprint.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I knew that Verizon and at&amp;t would come out against this .
They 've been taking additional revenues from the various fees like FUSF , et al and just plowing it right back into the revenue and dividend stream .
You think for a moment they 're actually going to do something like build out broadband ?
Not on your life , unless of course the FCC mandates it .
Then it 'll be tied up in the courts for a decade or so .
By the time a decision favoring the FCC ruling is made , there will already be an upstart and disruptive technology that fills the void , or do I need to remind everyone of the origins of MCI and Sprint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I knew that Verizon and at&amp;t would come out against this.
They've been taking additional revenues from the various fees like FUSF, et al and just plowing it right back into the revenue and dividend stream.
You think for a moment they're actually going to do something like build out broadband?
Not on your life, unless of course the FCC mandates it.
Then it'll be tied up in the courts for a decade or so.
By the time a decision favoring the FCC ruling is made, there will already be an upstart and disruptive technology that fills the void, or do I need to remind everyone of the origins of MCI and Sprint.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30206438</id>
	<title>Re:Attn: Telcos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258972800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No sir, IT'S OVER 9000!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No sir , IT 'S OVER 9000 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No sir, IT'S OVER 9000!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205636</id>
	<title>Re:Attn: Telcos</title>
	<author>oh\_my\_080980980</author>
	<datestamp>1258969200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Here here.
<br> <br>
What is sick about this, is the way telcos sue cities when they city tries to rollout their own broadband solution because the dam telco didn't do it!  The piss ant telco cries foul but they aren't providing any service!
<br> <br>
Agree sir, Big Telco - FUCK YOU!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here here .
What is sick about this , is the way telcos sue cities when they city tries to rollout their own broadband solution because the dam telco did n't do it !
The piss ant telco cries foul but they are n't providing any service !
Agree sir , Big Telco - FUCK YOU !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Here here.
What is sick about this, is the way telcos sue cities when they city tries to rollout their own broadband solution because the dam telco didn't do it!
The piss ant telco cries foul but they aren't providing any service!
Agree sir, Big Telco - FUCK YOU!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30211100</id>
	<title>Re:you're a middling propagandist</title>
	<author>rastoboy29</author>
	<datestamp>1259056500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>Uh, I don't think he said what you said he said.<br>Usually you're a better poster than this, circletimesquare.</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , I do n't think he said what you said he said.Usually you 're a better poster than this , circletimesquare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, I don't think he said what you said he said.Usually you're a better poster than this, circletimesquare.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204832</id>
	<title>Re:Attn: Telcos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259007300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>200 billion? have you followed your link lately? It's now 300 billion!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>200 billion ?
have you followed your link lately ?
It 's now 300 billion !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>200 billion?
have you followed your link lately?
It's now 300 billion!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30209116</id>
	<title>MaBell was broken up in the wrong way</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258986300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It should have been into horizontal companies, not vertical.</p><p>There should be one company that is responsible for all of the physical infrastructure (copper/fibre in the ground and switches to move data around) and another responsible for providing the services that are on top of that (telephony, Internet.)</p><p>Pass legislation that makes this a rule: if you provide telephony/Internet services then you cannot own copper/fibre and vice versa. Also forbid exclusive access contracts and require that access to the media is sold via an open auction process.</p><p>Then you will have a situation where all of your ISPs need to bid on getting access to the fibre/copper that runs to your house.</p><p>The catch here is that you will likely end up with a monopoly at the copper/fibre layer but the cost to everyone above should be about the same.</p><p>Now do the same for cable and satellite.</p><p>This won't provide "end to end" perfection that some would like to make you think is necessary, but it will open the market up in new ways that encourage more competition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It should have been into horizontal companies , not vertical.There should be one company that is responsible for all of the physical infrastructure ( copper/fibre in the ground and switches to move data around ) and another responsible for providing the services that are on top of that ( telephony , Internet .
) Pass legislation that makes this a rule : if you provide telephony/Internet services then you can not own copper/fibre and vice versa .
Also forbid exclusive access contracts and require that access to the media is sold via an open auction process.Then you will have a situation where all of your ISPs need to bid on getting access to the fibre/copper that runs to your house.The catch here is that you will likely end up with a monopoly at the copper/fibre layer but the cost to everyone above should be about the same.Now do the same for cable and satellite.This wo n't provide " end to end " perfection that some would like to make you think is necessary , but it will open the market up in new ways that encourage more competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It should have been into horizontal companies, not vertical.There should be one company that is responsible for all of the physical infrastructure (copper/fibre in the ground and switches to move data around) and another responsible for providing the services that are on top of that (telephony, Internet.
)Pass legislation that makes this a rule: if you provide telephony/Internet services then you cannot own copper/fibre and vice versa.
Also forbid exclusive access contracts and require that access to the media is sold via an open auction process.Then you will have a situation where all of your ISPs need to bid on getting access to the fibre/copper that runs to your house.The catch here is that you will likely end up with a monopoly at the copper/fibre layer but the cost to everyone above should be about the same.Now do the same for cable and satellite.This won't provide "end to end" perfection that some would like to make you think is necessary, but it will open the market up in new ways that encourage more competition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205172</id>
	<title>Re:No problem, give them all the subsidies they wa</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259009340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Something similar happened with the bailout money. When there were no strings attached everyone wanted their share.</p></div></blockquote><p>This is slightly misleading.  The first recipients of the bailout money were forced by the government to accept the bailouts.  Only later were companies lining up for the free money.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Something similar happened with the bailout money .
When there were no strings attached everyone wanted their share.This is slightly misleading .
The first recipients of the bailout money were forced by the government to accept the bailouts .
Only later were companies lining up for the free money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something similar happened with the bailout money.
When there were no strings attached everyone wanted their share.This is slightly misleading.
The first recipients of the bailout money were forced by the government to accept the bailouts.
Only later were companies lining up for the free money.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204404</id>
	<title>Re:Fascism, DUH</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1259004900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>War and weapons define the American economy.   Boeing and Raytheon and Xi could be considered the ultimate achievement of which a fascist society is capable.</p></div><p>I've heard people say this kind of thing, but I don't think they've actually checked the numbers. Even if you use the highest estimate for US military spending possible, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military\_budget\_of\_the\_United\_States" title="wikipedia.org">as you can see from this article</a> [wikipedia.org], you're still only getting $1.1 trillion, which include pensions and interest on past wars. Even then, it's less than 10\% of the entire US economy.....so what is the rest of the economy doing? How can you call it a welfare-warfare state when more than 90\% of what goes on isn't part of that welfare-warfare sector?  It's too sensationalistic.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>War and weapons define the American economy .
Boeing and Raytheon and Xi could be considered the ultimate achievement of which a fascist society is capable.I 've heard people say this kind of thing , but I do n't think they 've actually checked the numbers .
Even if you use the highest estimate for US military spending possible , as you can see from this article [ wikipedia.org ] , you 're still only getting $ 1.1 trillion , which include pensions and interest on past wars .
Even then , it 's less than 10 \ % of the entire US economy.....so what is the rest of the economy doing ?
How can you call it a welfare-warfare state when more than 90 \ % of what goes on is n't part of that welfare-warfare sector ?
It 's too sensationalistic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>War and weapons define the American economy.
Boeing and Raytheon and Xi could be considered the ultimate achievement of which a fascist society is capable.I've heard people say this kind of thing, but I don't think they've actually checked the numbers.
Even if you use the highest estimate for US military spending possible, as you can see from this article [wikipedia.org], you're still only getting $1.1 trillion, which include pensions and interest on past wars.
Even then, it's less than 10\% of the entire US economy.....so what is the rest of the economy doing?
How can you call it a welfare-warfare state when more than 90\% of what goes on isn't part of that welfare-warfare sector?
It's too sensationalistic.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204436</id>
	<title>Re:Attn: Telcos</title>
	<author>Compholio</author>
	<datestamp>1259005020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ahem.. (clears throat). FUCK YOU!</p><p>The taxpayer gave you Millions if not Billions back in the 90's for infrastructure upgrades. And now, a decade later, with YOU posting record profits, and infrastructure being upgraded at a rate comparable to snails pace, you have the gall to ask for more money from the taxpayers, i.e. your CUSTOMERS?</p><p>Pardon me Big Telco, but FUCK YOU!</p></div><p>That is because they have a legal obligation to their shareholders, not their customers.  Since the taxpayers did not become shareholders in this process they have no legal obligation to do anything except increase the return for their shareholders.  Since they received 200B USD in the 90s the only way they can do that (besides asking for more money) is to try and be as ruthless as possible.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahem.. ( clears throat ) .
FUCK YOU ! The taxpayer gave you Millions if not Billions back in the 90 's for infrastructure upgrades .
And now , a decade later , with YOU posting record profits , and infrastructure being upgraded at a rate comparable to snails pace , you have the gall to ask for more money from the taxpayers , i.e .
your CUSTOMERS ? Pardon me Big Telco , but FUCK YOU ! That is because they have a legal obligation to their shareholders , not their customers .
Since the taxpayers did not become shareholders in this process they have no legal obligation to do anything except increase the return for their shareholders .
Since they received 200B USD in the 90s the only way they can do that ( besides asking for more money ) is to try and be as ruthless as possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahem.. (clears throat).
FUCK YOU!The taxpayer gave you Millions if not Billions back in the 90's for infrastructure upgrades.
And now, a decade later, with YOU posting record profits, and infrastructure being upgraded at a rate comparable to snails pace, you have the gall to ask for more money from the taxpayers, i.e.
your CUSTOMERS?Pardon me Big Telco, but FUCK YOU!That is because they have a legal obligation to their shareholders, not their customers.
Since the taxpayers did not become shareholders in this process they have no legal obligation to do anything except increase the return for their shareholders.
Since they received 200B USD in the 90s the only way they can do that (besides asking for more money) is to try and be as ruthless as possible.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205774</id>
	<title>OT: Your illogical sig</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1258969860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you've commented, you can't mod anyone in that thread into oblivion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 've commented , you ca n't mod anyone in that thread into oblivion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you've commented, you can't mod anyone in that thread into oblivion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204198</id>
	<title>you're a middling propagandist</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1259003700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you have the emotional appeal down solid, its pretty good chest thumping stuff</p><p>but you're underpinning your inflammatory rhetoric with poor a set of facts</p><p>good propaganda never lies, it traffics in half truths. so, for example, you don't want to say the usa has ALWAYS been a fascist state. not mainly because thats a lie, but also because you undermine your final appeal for a return to constitutional roots... well, if those roots are so strong, how come the usa has "always" been a fascist state? its a contradiction. you can't refer to a strong set of principles that never actually worked</p><p>no, you need a sympathetic narrative, a demagogue's best friend: its better to refer a mythological past where everything was perfect, the founding fathers reigned supreme. then evil influences crept in. in your particular fantasy, that would be corporations, and they subverted and ruined the garden of eden</p><p>so instead you want to say the usa WAS ONCE a solid strong democracy. instill chest thumping patriotism here with strong quasihistoric visions, you know the drill. then change the tone and talk about how money was thrown around and morals and integrity were corrupted, the founding fathers betrayed... good hollywood stuff</p><p>good luck to you sir, you're well on your way to being a solid propagandizing demagogue. you have the emotional appeals down solid. now just hone up on the half-truths and you'll be a rabble rouser supreme!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you have the emotional appeal down solid , its pretty good chest thumping stuffbut you 're underpinning your inflammatory rhetoric with poor a set of factsgood propaganda never lies , it traffics in half truths .
so , for example , you do n't want to say the usa has ALWAYS been a fascist state .
not mainly because thats a lie , but also because you undermine your final appeal for a return to constitutional roots... well , if those roots are so strong , how come the usa has " always " been a fascist state ?
its a contradiction .
you ca n't refer to a strong set of principles that never actually workedno , you need a sympathetic narrative , a demagogue 's best friend : its better to refer a mythological past where everything was perfect , the founding fathers reigned supreme .
then evil influences crept in .
in your particular fantasy , that would be corporations , and they subverted and ruined the garden of edenso instead you want to say the usa WAS ONCE a solid strong democracy .
instill chest thumping patriotism here with strong quasihistoric visions , you know the drill .
then change the tone and talk about how money was thrown around and morals and integrity were corrupted , the founding fathers betrayed... good hollywood stuffgood luck to you sir , you 're well on your way to being a solid propagandizing demagogue .
you have the emotional appeals down solid .
now just hone up on the half-truths and you 'll be a rabble rouser supreme !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you have the emotional appeal down solid, its pretty good chest thumping stuffbut you're underpinning your inflammatory rhetoric with poor a set of factsgood propaganda never lies, it traffics in half truths.
so, for example, you don't want to say the usa has ALWAYS been a fascist state.
not mainly because thats a lie, but also because you undermine your final appeal for a return to constitutional roots... well, if those roots are so strong, how come the usa has "always" been a fascist state?
its a contradiction.
you can't refer to a strong set of principles that never actually workedno, you need a sympathetic narrative, a demagogue's best friend: its better to refer a mythological past where everything was perfect, the founding fathers reigned supreme.
then evil influences crept in.
in your particular fantasy, that would be corporations, and they subverted and ruined the garden of edenso instead you want to say the usa WAS ONCE a solid strong democracy.
instill chest thumping patriotism here with strong quasihistoric visions, you know the drill.
then change the tone and talk about how money was thrown around and morals and integrity were corrupted, the founding fathers betrayed... good hollywood stuffgood luck to you sir, you're well on your way to being a solid propagandizing demagogue.
you have the emotional appeals down solid.
now just hone up on the half-truths and you'll be a rabble rouser supreme!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204162</id>
	<title>Re:No problem, give them all the subsidies they wa</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259003460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By law, nobody employed by the federal government is allowed to pull in a higher salary than the President (currentky 400K/yr). This includes bonuses. I see no reason why corporations accepting bailout money should be treated differently.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By law , nobody employed by the federal government is allowed to pull in a higher salary than the President ( currentky 400K/yr ) .
This includes bonuses .
I see no reason why corporations accepting bailout money should be treated differently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By law, nobody employed by the federal government is allowed to pull in a higher salary than the President (currentky 400K/yr).
This includes bonuses.
I see no reason why corporations accepting bailout money should be treated differently.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205364</id>
	<title>Re:Fascism, DUH</title>
	<author>TeXMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1258967580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not aware of ANY welfare state that is in good shape economically.</p></div><p>Sweden and Norway come to mind.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not aware of ANY welfare state that is in good shape economically.Sweden and Norway come to mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not aware of ANY welfare state that is in good shape economically.Sweden and Norway come to mind.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204860</id>
	<title>Re:I see what they did there...</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1259007480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>fortunately, the 'corporates and uber-rich' are the ones who sign paychecks, so what's good for them winds up being good for everyone else too.</i></p><p>Well modded, that was indeed chuckleworthy. Who creates the wealth that the corporations control? The people who work for paychecks. The electric company's CEO doesn't create wealth, the linemen do. Wealth doesn't trickle down, it flows up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>fortunately , the 'corporates and uber-rich ' are the ones who sign paychecks , so what 's good for them winds up being good for everyone else too.Well modded , that was indeed chuckleworthy .
Who creates the wealth that the corporations control ?
The people who work for paychecks .
The electric company 's CEO does n't create wealth , the linemen do .
Wealth does n't trickle down , it flows up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fortunately, the 'corporates and uber-rich' are the ones who sign paychecks, so what's good for them winds up being good for everyone else too.Well modded, that was indeed chuckleworthy.
Who creates the wealth that the corporations control?
The people who work for paychecks.
The electric company's CEO doesn't create wealth, the linemen do.
Wealth doesn't trickle down, it flows up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204570</id>
	<title>Re:I see what they did there...</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1259005620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can we see some citation please?</p><p>And I don't mean providing a link to some blogger's opinion (which is the typical response), but some actual FACTS that trace the money flowing into telephone companies coffers, and money flowing out to rich person's pockets.  From my reading of the 1996 Telecom Act, the money was earmarked for laying digital phonelines, not internet.  i.e.  Blame Congress for poor planning</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we see some citation please ? And I do n't mean providing a link to some blogger 's opinion ( which is the typical response ) , but some actual FACTS that trace the money flowing into telephone companies coffers , and money flowing out to rich person 's pockets .
From my reading of the 1996 Telecom Act , the money was earmarked for laying digital phonelines , not internet .
i.e. Blame Congress for poor planning</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we see some citation please?And I don't mean providing a link to some blogger's opinion (which is the typical response), but some actual FACTS that trace the money flowing into telephone companies coffers, and money flowing out to rich person's pockets.
From my reading of the 1996 Telecom Act, the money was earmarked for laying digital phonelines, not internet.
i.e.  Blame Congress for poor planning</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204642</id>
	<title>Break Them UP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259006100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here is an IDEA</p><p>The Govt should come in an break up any telco who has a single point of entry into your house.</p><p>1) The telephone company<br>2) The cable company</p><p>They would create 2 divisions, physical plant division who would be run as a non-profit type co-op and a Media div who would have to buy their service from whomever they want.</p><p>The rates for delivery of content over the different wires would be set on actaul operation costs averaged out over the whole plant. Ie if it cost $1 per line to maintain the plant then access would be billed at $1 per line.</p><p>The govt then could allow these physical plant co-ops to merge so you could purchase coper rights on coax, pairs, fiber whatever is currently run to the house.</p><p>All the billing to the users would have a plant upgrade fee which would go into a fund to pay for plant upgrades, ie replacement of the copper with fiber.</p><p>This would level the field as AT&amp;T, Comcast, Verizon, XYZ Telephone would all pay the same to access a house. The only diff in their costs would be content and back haul charges which there is already competition for these.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is an IDEAThe Govt should come in an break up any telco who has a single point of entry into your house.1 ) The telephone company2 ) The cable companyThey would create 2 divisions , physical plant division who would be run as a non-profit type co-op and a Media div who would have to buy their service from whomever they want.The rates for delivery of content over the different wires would be set on actaul operation costs averaged out over the whole plant .
Ie if it cost $ 1 per line to maintain the plant then access would be billed at $ 1 per line.The govt then could allow these physical plant co-ops to merge so you could purchase coper rights on coax , pairs , fiber whatever is currently run to the house.All the billing to the users would have a plant upgrade fee which would go into a fund to pay for plant upgrades , ie replacement of the copper with fiber.This would level the field as AT&amp;T , Comcast , Verizon , XYZ Telephone would all pay the same to access a house .
The only diff in their costs would be content and back haul charges which there is already competition for these .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is an IDEAThe Govt should come in an break up any telco who has a single point of entry into your house.1) The telephone company2) The cable companyThey would create 2 divisions, physical plant division who would be run as a non-profit type co-op and a Media div who would have to buy their service from whomever they want.The rates for delivery of content over the different wires would be set on actaul operation costs averaged out over the whole plant.
Ie if it cost $1 per line to maintain the plant then access would be billed at $1 per line.The govt then could allow these physical plant co-ops to merge so you could purchase coper rights on coax, pairs, fiber whatever is currently run to the house.All the billing to the users would have a plant upgrade fee which would go into a fund to pay for plant upgrades, ie replacement of the copper with fiber.This would level the field as AT&amp;T, Comcast, Verizon, XYZ Telephone would all pay the same to access a house.
The only diff in their costs would be content and back haul charges which there is already competition for these.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204506</id>
	<title>Re:I see what they did there...</title>
	<author>jo\_ham</author>
	<datestamp>1259005380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it's actual stimulus cash signed into law by GWB, totalling something like $700B - Obama was not the president, when president GWB signed this stimulus money into law.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency\_Economic\_Stabilization\_Act\_of\_2008" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency\_Economic\_Stabilization\_Act\_of\_2008</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it 's actual stimulus cash signed into law by GWB , totalling something like $ 700B - Obama was not the president , when president GWB signed this stimulus money into law.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency \ _Economic \ _Stabilization \ _Act \ _of \ _2008 [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it's actual stimulus cash signed into law by GWB, totalling something like $700B - Obama was not the president, when president GWB signed this stimulus money into law.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency\_Economic\_Stabilization\_Act\_of\_2008 [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204790</id>
	<title>Re:I see what they did there...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259007000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Bush administration gave this welfare to the telcos, not the Obama administration. The telcos are trying to get more corporate welfare from Obama. Blame Obama for giving my tax money to the telcos when he actually does it, not when the telcos are standing on the corner with a cardboard sign that reads "will lobby for cash".</p><p> <b>For Christ's sake, man, open your eyes. Bush was a disaster for this country;</b> indeed, for the entire world -- for everyone but the corporates and the uber-rich.</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/34040009" title="cnbc.com" rel="nofollow">The 'Real' Jobless Rate: 17.5\% Of Workers Are Unemployed</a> [cnbc.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>As experts debate the potential speed of the US recovery, one figure looms large but is often overlooked: nearly 1 in 5 Americans is either out of work or under-employed.</p><p>According to the government's broadest measure of unemployment, some 17.5 percent are either without a job entirely or underemployed. The so-called U-6 number is at the highest rate since becoming an official labor statistic in 1994.</p></div><p>Whatever happened to all those clowns that would deride unemployment numbers during Bush's years as inaccurate because of "all those people who have given up looking"?</p><p>Guess what, clowns:  <b>NOW</b> it's TRUE.</p><p>What has Baracky's (and never forget Pelosi's!) bailouts^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hhandouts have done?  Has <b>Government</b> Motors turned around yet?</p><p>The only good news is that the recent <b>ASS WHIPPINGS</b> that Obama-linked Dems got in states Obama carried just 12 months ago (Virginia and <b>New Jersey</b> - holy fuck, <b>New Jersey</b> voted for a <b>REPUBLICAN!!!!</b>)  means that Obamacare is DOA.  Do you <b>REALLY</b> think Harry Reid is going to let a bill get passed when doing that means Nevada's unemployment rolls will swell by one when he becomes an ex-Senator?</p><p>Read it and weep - the middle-class voters who put Obama into office because he wasn't George W. Bush <b>DO NOT</b> want him <b>FUCKING UP</b> their just-fine health care just so Dems can bribe votes from a bunch of people who can't keep a job.</p><p>Democrats - what you get when the public realizes it can vote itself bread and circuses.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Bush administration gave this welfare to the telcos , not the Obama administration .
The telcos are trying to get more corporate welfare from Obama .
Blame Obama for giving my tax money to the telcos when he actually does it , not when the telcos are standing on the corner with a cardboard sign that reads " will lobby for cash " .
For Christ 's sake , man , open your eyes .
Bush was a disaster for this country ; indeed , for the entire world -- for everyone but the corporates and the uber-rich .
The 'Real ' Jobless Rate : 17.5 \ % Of Workers Are Unemployed [ cnbc.com ] As experts debate the potential speed of the US recovery , one figure looms large but is often overlooked : nearly 1 in 5 Americans is either out of work or under-employed.According to the government 's broadest measure of unemployment , some 17.5 percent are either without a job entirely or underemployed .
The so-called U-6 number is at the highest rate since becoming an official labor statistic in 1994.Whatever happened to all those clowns that would deride unemployment numbers during Bush 's years as inaccurate because of " all those people who have given up looking " ? Guess what , clowns : NOW it 's TRUE.What has Baracky 's ( and never forget Pelosi 's !
) bailouts ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ Hhandouts have done ?
Has Government Motors turned around yet ? The only good news is that the recent ASS WHIPPINGS that Obama-linked Dems got in states Obama carried just 12 months ago ( Virginia and New Jersey - holy fuck , New Jersey voted for a REPUBLICAN ! ! ! !
) means that Obamacare is DOA .
Do you REALLY think Harry Reid is going to let a bill get passed when doing that means Nevada 's unemployment rolls will swell by one when he becomes an ex-Senator ? Read it and weep - the middle-class voters who put Obama into office because he was n't George W. Bush DO NOT want him FUCKING UP their just-fine health care just so Dems can bribe votes from a bunch of people who ca n't keep a job.Democrats - what you get when the public realizes it can vote itself bread and circuses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Bush administration gave this welfare to the telcos, not the Obama administration.
The telcos are trying to get more corporate welfare from Obama.
Blame Obama for giving my tax money to the telcos when he actually does it, not when the telcos are standing on the corner with a cardboard sign that reads "will lobby for cash".
For Christ's sake, man, open your eyes.
Bush was a disaster for this country; indeed, for the entire world -- for everyone but the corporates and the uber-rich.
The 'Real' Jobless Rate: 17.5\% Of Workers Are Unemployed [cnbc.com] As experts debate the potential speed of the US recovery, one figure looms large but is often overlooked: nearly 1 in 5 Americans is either out of work or under-employed.According to the government's broadest measure of unemployment, some 17.5 percent are either without a job entirely or underemployed.
The so-called U-6 number is at the highest rate since becoming an official labor statistic in 1994.Whatever happened to all those clowns that would deride unemployment numbers during Bush's years as inaccurate because of "all those people who have given up looking"?Guess what, clowns:  NOW it's TRUE.What has Baracky's (and never forget Pelosi's!
) bailouts^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hhandouts have done?
Has Government Motors turned around yet?The only good news is that the recent ASS WHIPPINGS that Obama-linked Dems got in states Obama carried just 12 months ago (Virginia and New Jersey - holy fuck, New Jersey voted for a REPUBLICAN!!!!
)  means that Obamacare is DOA.
Do you REALLY think Harry Reid is going to let a bill get passed when doing that means Nevada's unemployment rolls will swell by one when he becomes an ex-Senator?Read it and weep - the middle-class voters who put Obama into office because he wasn't George W. Bush DO NOT want him FUCKING UP their just-fine health care just so Dems can bribe votes from a bunch of people who can't keep a job.Democrats - what you get when the public realizes it can vote itself bread and circuses.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204590</id>
	<title>Re:you're a middling propagandist</title>
	<author>ae1294</author>
	<datestamp>1259005800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>you have the emotional appeal down solid, its pretty good chest thumping stuff<br>but you're underpinning your inflammatory rhetoric with poor a set of facts</p></div><p>This reminded me of that old black and white episode of the Twilight Zone where the ghost of Hitler helps a guy learn to be a better public hate speaker.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>you have the emotional appeal down solid , its pretty good chest thumping stuffbut you 're underpinning your inflammatory rhetoric with poor a set of factsThis reminded me of that old black and white episode of the Twilight Zone where the ghost of Hitler helps a guy learn to be a better public hate speaker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you have the emotional appeal down solid, its pretty good chest thumping stuffbut you're underpinning your inflammatory rhetoric with poor a set of factsThis reminded me of that old black and white episode of the Twilight Zone where the ghost of Hitler helps a guy learn to be a better public hate speaker.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203758</id>
	<title>I wonder who wrote that criticism...</title>
	<author>Improv</author>
	<datestamp>1259001240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Was it Cato? It's sometimes hard to tell the difference between the big businesses that want freedom from any laws that they find inconvenient and the "philosophers" who have what amounts to be almost the same thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was it Cato ?
It 's sometimes hard to tell the difference between the big businesses that want freedom from any laws that they find inconvenient and the " philosophers " who have what amounts to be almost the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was it Cato?
It's sometimes hard to tell the difference between the big businesses that want freedom from any laws that they find inconvenient and the "philosophers" who have what amounts to be almost the same thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203894</id>
	<title>Linesharing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259002020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least here in Finland line-sharing did wonders to consumers. It lowered prices and allowed small companies the possibility to offer broadband with completely different business models. Competition also forced the big ones to improve customer service quality. I can't think of any downsides for the customer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least here in Finland line-sharing did wonders to consumers .
It lowered prices and allowed small companies the possibility to offer broadband with completely different business models .
Competition also forced the big ones to improve customer service quality .
I ca n't think of any downsides for the customer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least here in Finland line-sharing did wonders to consumers.
It lowered prices and allowed small companies the possibility to offer broadband with completely different business models.
Competition also forced the big ones to improve customer service quality.
I can't think of any downsides for the customer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30207584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30213264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30206640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30206544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30209306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30207812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30207222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30207346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30206690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30211646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30206086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30207096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30211314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30209014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30211676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30206190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30207164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30207588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30208394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30213638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30210404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30206438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30209326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30208854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30207798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30209116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30211100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30207044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30210154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30209006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_1651218_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30210502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_1651218.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30206690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205172
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_1651218.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30211676
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_1651218.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203912
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205032
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204196
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205186
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204714
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30209326
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205364
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205376
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30206190
------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30207164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30210502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204616
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30207222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204198
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30209306
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30210404
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30211100
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204740
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_1651218.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203828
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30207798
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204286
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30213264
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204608
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203704
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204506
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204322
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204790
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205434
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204686
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204572
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204860
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204878
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30209006
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30211646
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205166
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30206544
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205366
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205992
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205586
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204402
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_1651218.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204406
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30207812
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205362
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30207584
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30207096
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30208394
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30213638
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205558
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30209116
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30211314
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205078
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_1651218.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205774
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30209014
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_1651218.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203738
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_1651218.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204438
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_1651218.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204204
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_1651218.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205742
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_1651218.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30207346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30207588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30208854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205204
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30206086
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30210154
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30206640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30207044
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_1651218.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30203902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30205636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204150
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204832
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30206438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_1651218.30204436
</commentlist>
</conversation>
