<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_04_1518221</id>
	<title>Hunting the Mythical "Bandwidth Hog"</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1259941500000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>eldavojohn writes <i>"Benoit Felten, an analyst in Paris, has heard enough of the elusive creature known as <a href="http://www.fiberevolution.com/2009/12/whats-a-bandwidth-hog-.html">the bandwidth hog</a>. Like its cousin the Boogie Man, the 'bandwidth hog' is a tale that ISPs tell their frightened users to keep them in check or to cut off whoever they want to cut off from service.  And Felten's calling them out because he's certain that bandwidth hogs don't exist. What's actually happening is the ISPs are selecting the top 5\% of users, by volume of bits that move on their wire, and revoking their service, even if they aren't negatively impacting other users. Which means that they are <a href="//tech.slashdot.org/story/09/04/25/1237215/Time-Warner-Shutting-Off-Austin-Accounts-For-Heavy-Usage">targeting 'heavy users' simply for being 'heavy users.'</a>  Felten has thrown down the gauntlet asking for a standardized data set from any telco that he can do statistical analysis on that will allow him to find any evidence of a single outlier ruining the experience for everyone else. Unlikely any telco will take him up on that offer but his point still stands."</i> Felten's challenge is paired with <a href="http://www.dadamotive.com/2009/11/congestion-neutrality.html">a more technical look at how networks operate</a>, which claims that TCP/IP by its design eliminates the possibility of hogging bandwidth. But Wes Felter <a href="http://www.nnsquad.org/archives/nnsquad/msg02403.html">corrects that mis-impression</a> in a post to a network neutrality mailing list.</htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn writes " Benoit Felten , an analyst in Paris , has heard enough of the elusive creature known as the bandwidth hog .
Like its cousin the Boogie Man , the 'bandwidth hog ' is a tale that ISPs tell their frightened users to keep them in check or to cut off whoever they want to cut off from service .
And Felten 's calling them out because he 's certain that bandwidth hogs do n't exist .
What 's actually happening is the ISPs are selecting the top 5 \ % of users , by volume of bits that move on their wire , and revoking their service , even if they are n't negatively impacting other users .
Which means that they are targeting 'heavy users ' simply for being 'heavy users .
' Felten has thrown down the gauntlet asking for a standardized data set from any telco that he can do statistical analysis on that will allow him to find any evidence of a single outlier ruining the experience for everyone else .
Unlikely any telco will take him up on that offer but his point still stands .
" Felten 's challenge is paired with a more technical look at how networks operate , which claims that TCP/IP by its design eliminates the possibility of hogging bandwidth .
But Wes Felter corrects that mis-impression in a post to a network neutrality mailing list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn writes "Benoit Felten, an analyst in Paris, has heard enough of the elusive creature known as the bandwidth hog.
Like its cousin the Boogie Man, the 'bandwidth hog' is a tale that ISPs tell their frightened users to keep them in check or to cut off whoever they want to cut off from service.
And Felten's calling them out because he's certain that bandwidth hogs don't exist.
What's actually happening is the ISPs are selecting the top 5\% of users, by volume of bits that move on their wire, and revoking their service, even if they aren't negatively impacting other users.
Which means that they are targeting 'heavy users' simply for being 'heavy users.
'  Felten has thrown down the gauntlet asking for a standardized data set from any telco that he can do statistical analysis on that will allow him to find any evidence of a single outlier ruining the experience for everyone else.
Unlikely any telco will take him up on that offer but his point still stands.
" Felten's challenge is paired with a more technical look at how networks operate, which claims that TCP/IP by its design eliminates the possibility of hogging bandwidth.
But Wes Felter corrects that mis-impression in a post to a network neutrality mailing list.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324984</id>
	<title>bandwidth limiting per process</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259948100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>perhaps slightly off-topic, but does anybody here know about a way to limit bandwidth consumption on a per-process basis under linux?<br>for example, if i wish to limit bandwidth usage of my torrent client, how do i do that?</p><p>i've seen some horribly complicated methods using iptables, so i was wondering, is there anything simpler?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>perhaps slightly off-topic , but does anybody here know about a way to limit bandwidth consumption on a per-process basis under linux ? for example , if i wish to limit bandwidth usage of my torrent client , how do i do that ? i 've seen some horribly complicated methods using iptables , so i was wondering , is there anything simpler ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>perhaps slightly off-topic, but does anybody here know about a way to limit bandwidth consumption on a per-process basis under linux?for example, if i wish to limit bandwidth usage of my torrent client, how do i do that?i've seen some horribly complicated methods using iptables, so i was wondering, is there anything simpler?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324620</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting headline.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259946480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is the problem with America these days, people can't even RTFA before trying to be a show off.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the problem with America these days , people ca n't even RTFA before trying to be a show off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the problem with America these days, people can't even RTFA before trying to be a show off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325416</id>
	<title>Why hunt something you are sure is mythical?</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1259949720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just asking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just asking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just asking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325264</id>
	<title>Re:Same tired argument</title>
	<author>gtall</author>
	<datestamp>1259949060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know whether bandwidth hogging is a problem but it is possible that 1 heavy user isn't impacting everyone but the top 5\% might be sucking up lots of bandwidth. So either Benoit is raising a red herring or the Slashdot precis' is defective.</p><p>I do think that if a teleco is going to advertise unlimited bandwidth, they are required to provide unlimited bandwidth. It's a stupid ad to make anyhow. They should say they will support up to x where x really is what they will support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know whether bandwidth hogging is a problem but it is possible that 1 heavy user is n't impacting everyone but the top 5 \ % might be sucking up lots of bandwidth .
So either Benoit is raising a red herring or the Slashdot precis ' is defective.I do think that if a teleco is going to advertise unlimited bandwidth , they are required to provide unlimited bandwidth .
It 's a stupid ad to make anyhow .
They should say they will support up to x where x really is what they will support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know whether bandwidth hogging is a problem but it is possible that 1 heavy user isn't impacting everyone but the top 5\% might be sucking up lots of bandwidth.
So either Benoit is raising a red herring or the Slashdot precis' is defective.I do think that if a teleco is going to advertise unlimited bandwidth, they are required to provide unlimited bandwidth.
It's a stupid ad to make anyhow.
They should say they will support up to x where x really is what they will support.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325190</id>
	<title>Re:Bandwidth can be hogged - I've seen it</title>
	<author>Bourdain</author>
	<datestamp>1259948820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The router could be part of it -- I have a decent router and monitor the CPU utilization under a variety of situations and found in my case, it's rarely the cause of latency...
<br>
<br>
I've found that when I saturate only the upsteam, my latency substantially increases (despite setting QoS to lowest with that).
<br>
<br>
Saturating the downstream does not significant affect latency.
<br>
<br>
i.e. I have an older cable internet connection in NYC (only thing available in this grand / advanced city...) and I download up to about 1000Kb and upload at about 40KB
<br>
<br>
if i set upload to only 10-15KB, it doesn't affect latency whereas I could be downloading at full capacity with minimal impact
<br>
<br>
fyi -- I'm using a buffalo router with tomato</htmltext>
<tokenext>The router could be part of it -- I have a decent router and monitor the CPU utilization under a variety of situations and found in my case , it 's rarely the cause of latency.. . I 've found that when I saturate only the upsteam , my latency substantially increases ( despite setting QoS to lowest with that ) .
Saturating the downstream does not significant affect latency .
i.e. I have an older cable internet connection in NYC ( only thing available in this grand / advanced city... ) and I download up to about 1000Kb and upload at about 40KB if i set upload to only 10-15KB , it does n't affect latency whereas I could be downloading at full capacity with minimal impact fyi -- I 'm using a buffalo router with tomato</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The router could be part of it -- I have a decent router and monitor the CPU utilization under a variety of situations and found in my case, it's rarely the cause of latency...


I've found that when I saturate only the upsteam, my latency substantially increases (despite setting QoS to lowest with that).
Saturating the downstream does not significant affect latency.
i.e. I have an older cable internet connection in NYC (only thing available in this grand / advanced city...) and I download up to about 1000Kb and upload at about 40KB


if i set upload to only 10-15KB, it doesn't affect latency whereas I could be downloading at full capacity with minimal impact


fyi -- I'm using a buffalo router with tomato</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324998</id>
	<title>Re:Bandwidth can be hogged - I've seen it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259948160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my experience, the main problem with bittorrent on a shared connection is that it opens up many connections that the router is keeping track of and when you increase the number of connections that are allowed to be open or decrease the amount of time the connection is stored, the performance generally increases.</p><p>This isn't configurable in many routers' default firmware. I know it is an option in DD-WRT and Tomato firmwares for the Linksys WRT54G (which is a great router)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my experience , the main problem with bittorrent on a shared connection is that it opens up many connections that the router is keeping track of and when you increase the number of connections that are allowed to be open or decrease the amount of time the connection is stored , the performance generally increases.This is n't configurable in many routers ' default firmware .
I know it is an option in DD-WRT and Tomato firmwares for the Linksys WRT54G ( which is a great router )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my experience, the main problem with bittorrent on a shared connection is that it opens up many connections that the router is keeping track of and when you increase the number of connections that are allowed to be open or decrease the amount of time the connection is stored, the performance generally increases.This isn't configurable in many routers' default firmware.
I know it is an option in DD-WRT and Tomato firmwares for the Linksys WRT54G (which is a great router)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324392</id>
	<title>Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259945580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why would any business cancel paying customers that don't negatively impact operations?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would any business cancel paying customers that do n't negatively impact operations ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would any business cancel paying customers that don't negatively impact operations?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324488</id>
	<title>Bandwidth can be hogged - I've seen it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259946000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have personally witnessed hogging of bandwidth and, I'd wager, so have you.  This term describes when an individual user uses more bandwidth resources than they were assumed to need.</p><p>Example:  My brother moves in with two of his friends.  His latency is horrible.  When his roommate is not home, the internet is fine.  When he's away at work it becomes unusable.    He calls me to look at the situation, and we determine that one of his roomies is a heavy torrent user.  Turns out the roommate was ramping up torrents of anime shows he wanted to watch while he was gone.  He was aware of the impact to his own internet experience, and so ramped it back down when he wanted to use it himself.</p><p>If that's not hogging bandwidth, I'm not too sure what is.</p><p>If this doesn't scale, logically, up to the network at a whole, I'm not sure why.</p><p>Now, to be completely clear - I feel overselling bandwidth is wrong.  I feel the proper response to issues like this on the larger network is guaranteed access to the full amount of bandwidth sold at all times.  On the local scale, these men should have brought in another source of internet.  On the larger scale, the telco should do the same.</p><p>Denying that the issue can happen, however, is stupid to the point of sabotage.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>An end-user can download all his access line will sustain when the network is comparatively empty, but as soon as it fills up from other users' traffic, his own download (or upload) rate will diminish until it's no bigger than what anyone else gets.</p></div><p>So, if I understand this statement, if a user is hogging all the bandwidth until no one gets any connectivity - since it is all the same it is totally fair.  One user can bottleneck the pipes, but since their stuff isn't fast any more either, we're all good?</p><p>How does an argument of this kind help anyone but a bandwidth hog?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have personally witnessed hogging of bandwidth and , I 'd wager , so have you .
This term describes when an individual user uses more bandwidth resources than they were assumed to need.Example : My brother moves in with two of his friends .
His latency is horrible .
When his roommate is not home , the internet is fine .
When he 's away at work it becomes unusable .
He calls me to look at the situation , and we determine that one of his roomies is a heavy torrent user .
Turns out the roommate was ramping up torrents of anime shows he wanted to watch while he was gone .
He was aware of the impact to his own internet experience , and so ramped it back down when he wanted to use it himself.If that 's not hogging bandwidth , I 'm not too sure what is.If this does n't scale , logically , up to the network at a whole , I 'm not sure why.Now , to be completely clear - I feel overselling bandwidth is wrong .
I feel the proper response to issues like this on the larger network is guaranteed access to the full amount of bandwidth sold at all times .
On the local scale , these men should have brought in another source of internet .
On the larger scale , the telco should do the same.Denying that the issue can happen , however , is stupid to the point of sabotage.An end-user can download all his access line will sustain when the network is comparatively empty , but as soon as it fills up from other users ' traffic , his own download ( or upload ) rate will diminish until it 's no bigger than what anyone else gets.So , if I understand this statement , if a user is hogging all the bandwidth until no one gets any connectivity - since it is all the same it is totally fair .
One user can bottleneck the pipes , but since their stuff is n't fast any more either , we 're all good ? How does an argument of this kind help anyone but a bandwidth hog ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have personally witnessed hogging of bandwidth and, I'd wager, so have you.
This term describes when an individual user uses more bandwidth resources than they were assumed to need.Example:  My brother moves in with two of his friends.
His latency is horrible.
When his roommate is not home, the internet is fine.
When he's away at work it becomes unusable.
He calls me to look at the situation, and we determine that one of his roomies is a heavy torrent user.
Turns out the roommate was ramping up torrents of anime shows he wanted to watch while he was gone.
He was aware of the impact to his own internet experience, and so ramped it back down when he wanted to use it himself.If that's not hogging bandwidth, I'm not too sure what is.If this doesn't scale, logically, up to the network at a whole, I'm not sure why.Now, to be completely clear - I feel overselling bandwidth is wrong.
I feel the proper response to issues like this on the larger network is guaranteed access to the full amount of bandwidth sold at all times.
On the local scale, these men should have brought in another source of internet.
On the larger scale, the telco should do the same.Denying that the issue can happen, however, is stupid to the point of sabotage.An end-user can download all his access line will sustain when the network is comparatively empty, but as soon as it fills up from other users' traffic, his own download (or upload) rate will diminish until it's no bigger than what anyone else gets.So, if I understand this statement, if a user is hogging all the bandwidth until no one gets any connectivity - since it is all the same it is totally fair.
One user can bottleneck the pipes, but since their stuff isn't fast any more either, we're all good?How does an argument of this kind help anyone but a bandwidth hog?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324728</id>
	<title>Re:Bandwidth can be hogged - I've seen it</title>
	<author>betterunixthanunix</author>
	<datestamp>1259947020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>"If this doesn't scale, logically, up to the network at a whole, I'm not sure why."<br> <br>

Plenty of reasons why that won't scale up to the network as a whole.  First and foremost, your ISP's network topology is a lot more effective for many users than the simple "star" topology most home router/switch combos give you.  Beyond just the topology, the ISP uses better equipment that can cap bandwidth usage and dynamically shift priorities to maintain a minimum level of service for all users even in the presence of a very heavy user.  The ISP also has much higher capacity links than what you have at home, and certainly more than the link they give you, and so even if there were a very poor topology and no switch level bandwidth management, it would be very difficult for a single user to severely diminish service for others.<br> <br>

I do not have any sympathy for ISPs when it comes to this issue.  If they sell me broadband service and expect me to not use it, then they are supremely stupid, and retaliating against those users who actually make use of the bandwidth they are sold is just insulting.  They oversold the bandwidth and they should suffer for it; blaming the users is just misguided.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" If this does n't scale , logically , up to the network at a whole , I 'm not sure why .
" Plenty of reasons why that wo n't scale up to the network as a whole .
First and foremost , your ISP 's network topology is a lot more effective for many users than the simple " star " topology most home router/switch combos give you .
Beyond just the topology , the ISP uses better equipment that can cap bandwidth usage and dynamically shift priorities to maintain a minimum level of service for all users even in the presence of a very heavy user .
The ISP also has much higher capacity links than what you have at home , and certainly more than the link they give you , and so even if there were a very poor topology and no switch level bandwidth management , it would be very difficult for a single user to severely diminish service for others .
I do not have any sympathy for ISPs when it comes to this issue .
If they sell me broadband service and expect me to not use it , then they are supremely stupid , and retaliating against those users who actually make use of the bandwidth they are sold is just insulting .
They oversold the bandwidth and they should suffer for it ; blaming the users is just misguided .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If this doesn't scale, logically, up to the network at a whole, I'm not sure why.
" 

Plenty of reasons why that won't scale up to the network as a whole.
First and foremost, your ISP's network topology is a lot more effective for many users than the simple "star" topology most home router/switch combos give you.
Beyond just the topology, the ISP uses better equipment that can cap bandwidth usage and dynamically shift priorities to maintain a minimum level of service for all users even in the presence of a very heavy user.
The ISP also has much higher capacity links than what you have at home, and certainly more than the link they give you, and so even if there were a very poor topology and no switch level bandwidth management, it would be very difficult for a single user to severely diminish service for others.
I do not have any sympathy for ISPs when it comes to this issue.
If they sell me broadband service and expect me to not use it, then they are supremely stupid, and retaliating against those users who actually make use of the bandwidth they are sold is just insulting.
They oversold the bandwidth and they should suffer for it; blaming the users is just misguided.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30331738</id>
	<title>Re:I do it too</title>
	<author>shaitand</author>
	<datestamp>1259937120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you a monopoly duopoly? Are you federally subsidized? The answers to those questions make a great deal of difference in what level of service I expect and demand from you. Do you enjoy government granted perks as a common carrier?</p><p>If taco bell were the only restaurant and federally subsidized then refusing to serve me amounts to making me pay you to provide me the option to eat out and then refusing to allow me to eat out.</p><p>When there are a dozen carriers in every town and they all over varying terms instead of engaging in collusion, then we can talk about a carriers right to refuse service.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you a monopoly duopoly ?
Are you federally subsidized ?
The answers to those questions make a great deal of difference in what level of service I expect and demand from you .
Do you enjoy government granted perks as a common carrier ? If taco bell were the only restaurant and federally subsidized then refusing to serve me amounts to making me pay you to provide me the option to eat out and then refusing to allow me to eat out.When there are a dozen carriers in every town and they all over varying terms instead of engaging in collusion , then we can talk about a carriers right to refuse service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you a monopoly duopoly?
Are you federally subsidized?
The answers to those questions make a great deal of difference in what level of service I expect and demand from you.
Do you enjoy government granted perks as a common carrier?If taco bell were the only restaurant and federally subsidized then refusing to serve me amounts to making me pay you to provide me the option to eat out and then refusing to allow me to eat out.When there are a dozen carriers in every town and they all over varying terms instead of engaging in collusion, then we can talk about a carriers right to refuse service.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30326644</id>
	<title>Re:No site has ever been slashdotted</title>
	<author>Mezoth</author>
	<datestamp>1259954760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except this is no longer true in a full-duplex world, you can approach 99\% utilization on Ethernet at full-duplex.  At the time token-ring was competitive, full-duplex Ethernet was just emerging.  While IBM's marketing and some of the complexity of token-ring hurt it, what really killed it was the widespread emergence of full-duplex ethernet switches which basically eliminated the under-utilization problem while not having the complexity of dealing with a token-ring network.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except this is no longer true in a full-duplex world , you can approach 99 \ % utilization on Ethernet at full-duplex .
At the time token-ring was competitive , full-duplex Ethernet was just emerging .
While IBM 's marketing and some of the complexity of token-ring hurt it , what really killed it was the widespread emergence of full-duplex ethernet switches which basically eliminated the under-utilization problem while not having the complexity of dealing with a token-ring network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except this is no longer true in a full-duplex world, you can approach 99\% utilization on Ethernet at full-duplex.
At the time token-ring was competitive, full-duplex Ethernet was just emerging.
While IBM's marketing and some of the complexity of token-ring hurt it, what really killed it was the widespread emergence of full-duplex ethernet switches which basically eliminated the under-utilization problem while not having the complexity of dealing with a token-ring network.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30326840</id>
	<title>Re:Bandwidth Hog</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259955600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the ISPs are greedy and you're not...lol.</p><p>I'll bet that you are one of those 500 pound porkers that I see at the all-you-can-buffets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the ISPs are greedy and you 're not...lol.I 'll bet that you are one of those 500 pound porkers that I see at the all-you-can-buffets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the ISPs are greedy and you're not...lol.I'll bet that you are one of those 500 pound porkers that I see at the all-you-can-buffets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30326908</id>
	<title>Re:Bandwidth can be hogged - I've seen it</title>
	<author>bennomatic</author>
	<datestamp>1259955900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I totally agree.  In fact, I think that there should be either tiered or per-usage pricing.  Flat-rate is what makes this so difficult.  The tiered or metered usage charges shouldn't be ridiculous, but enough so that heavy users pay a little more of their share than the light users.  Here's what I think would resolve the whole problem:
<ul>
<li>Everyone pays a base-rate for the connection, say $10/mo for the physical line, i.e. cable or DSL.</li>
<li>Offer tiered rates for a few different levels of sustained/burst rate combinations, as well as some premium packages, including different options for up/down-stream feed speeds.</li>
<li>Offer a base amount of data transfer with each package, with reasonable, fully detailed overage charges, say $0.50/GB, rounded up to the next GB for any given month's overages.</li>
<li>Offer tools to monitor usage so nobody gets surprised at the end of the month.</li>
<li>Offer tools to shape your own connection to avoid overages while still getting the service you need.</li>
</ul><p>

I work out of my home office and I'm on the system all day, pushing gobs of data.  My wife is at home, taking care of our kid while I work, and when he's napping, she'll often watch a show over streaming video.  The service is good and fast, and I am fine paying $50 a month for it like I do.  But someone who does email and facebook updates for an hour a day should be able to do so for $15/mo, and someone who is pushing 500GB of torrents back and forth each month should be paying more.
<br> <br>
Argue the legality, morality and other merits and liabilities of file sharing--which is part of what this is all about--part of the reason people do it is that it's effectively free.  If downloading a 5 GB HD movie cost them an extra $2.00, then they may be more likely to go down to the local BlockBuster and just rent the darn thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I totally agree .
In fact , I think that there should be either tiered or per-usage pricing .
Flat-rate is what makes this so difficult .
The tiered or metered usage charges should n't be ridiculous , but enough so that heavy users pay a little more of their share than the light users .
Here 's what I think would resolve the whole problem : Everyone pays a base-rate for the connection , say $ 10/mo for the physical line , i.e .
cable or DSL .
Offer tiered rates for a few different levels of sustained/burst rate combinations , as well as some premium packages , including different options for up/down-stream feed speeds .
Offer a base amount of data transfer with each package , with reasonable , fully detailed overage charges , say $ 0.50/GB , rounded up to the next GB for any given month 's overages .
Offer tools to monitor usage so nobody gets surprised at the end of the month .
Offer tools to shape your own connection to avoid overages while still getting the service you need .
I work out of my home office and I 'm on the system all day , pushing gobs of data .
My wife is at home , taking care of our kid while I work , and when he 's napping , she 'll often watch a show over streaming video .
The service is good and fast , and I am fine paying $ 50 a month for it like I do .
But someone who does email and facebook updates for an hour a day should be able to do so for $ 15/mo , and someone who is pushing 500GB of torrents back and forth each month should be paying more .
Argue the legality , morality and other merits and liabilities of file sharing--which is part of what this is all about--part of the reason people do it is that it 's effectively free .
If downloading a 5 GB HD movie cost them an extra $ 2.00 , then they may be more likely to go down to the local BlockBuster and just rent the darn thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I totally agree.
In fact, I think that there should be either tiered or per-usage pricing.
Flat-rate is what makes this so difficult.
The tiered or metered usage charges shouldn't be ridiculous, but enough so that heavy users pay a little more of their share than the light users.
Here's what I think would resolve the whole problem:

Everyone pays a base-rate for the connection, say $10/mo for the physical line, i.e.
cable or DSL.
Offer tiered rates for a few different levels of sustained/burst rate combinations, as well as some premium packages, including different options for up/down-stream feed speeds.
Offer a base amount of data transfer with each package, with reasonable, fully detailed overage charges, say $0.50/GB, rounded up to the next GB for any given month's overages.
Offer tools to monitor usage so nobody gets surprised at the end of the month.
Offer tools to shape your own connection to avoid overages while still getting the service you need.
I work out of my home office and I'm on the system all day, pushing gobs of data.
My wife is at home, taking care of our kid while I work, and when he's napping, she'll often watch a show over streaming video.
The service is good and fast, and I am fine paying $50 a month for it like I do.
But someone who does email and facebook updates for an hour a day should be able to do so for $15/mo, and someone who is pushing 500GB of torrents back and forth each month should be paying more.
Argue the legality, morality and other merits and liabilities of file sharing--which is part of what this is all about--part of the reason people do it is that it's effectively free.
If downloading a 5 GB HD movie cost them an extra $2.00, then they may be more likely to go down to the local BlockBuster and just rent the darn thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30329434</id>
	<title>Re:East ireland</title>
	<author>johno.ie</author>
	<datestamp>1259923680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Roy Keane, is that you? Stop living in the past man.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Roy Keane , is that you ?
Stop living in the past man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Roy Keane, is that you?
Stop living in the past man.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325866</id>
	<title>Re:Bandwidth can be hogged - I've seen it</title>
	<author>tibman</author>
	<datestamp>1259951700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Companies overselling is a very popular and acceptable thing too (for them).  Airlines, hotels, and movie theaters often do this expecting no-shows and cancels.  But i expect the percentage oversold is based on historical facts for that particular day the previous year.  ISPs might have been able to oversell so much in the past but as more content moves from tv/phone/radio to the internet, the typical usage might be outstripping the previous years usage numbers.  Just my thoughts..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Companies overselling is a very popular and acceptable thing too ( for them ) .
Airlines , hotels , and movie theaters often do this expecting no-shows and cancels .
But i expect the percentage oversold is based on historical facts for that particular day the previous year .
ISPs might have been able to oversell so much in the past but as more content moves from tv/phone/radio to the internet , the typical usage might be outstripping the previous years usage numbers .
Just my thoughts. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Companies overselling is a very popular and acceptable thing too (for them).
Airlines, hotels, and movie theaters often do this expecting no-shows and cancels.
But i expect the percentage oversold is based on historical facts for that particular day the previous year.
ISPs might have been able to oversell so much in the past but as more content moves from tv/phone/radio to the internet, the typical usage might be outstripping the previous years usage numbers.
Just my thoughts..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30329804</id>
	<title>Re:I do it too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259925480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your company doesn't have a defacto-government granted monopoly.  Your company isn't providing a critical infrastructure service.  Your company doesn't sue competitors (muni's) who try to simply compete on a level playing field.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your company does n't have a defacto-government granted monopoly .
Your company is n't providing a critical infrastructure service .
Your company does n't sue competitors ( muni 's ) who try to simply compete on a level playing field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your company doesn't have a defacto-government granted monopoly.
Your company isn't providing a critical infrastructure service.
Your company doesn't sue competitors (muni's) who try to simply compete on a level playing field.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324366</id>
	<title>Same tired argument</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259945520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We aren't getting the advertised bandwidth! Waaah!</p><p>Richard Bennett's response is worth the read, and it puts Benoit's theory of "fair bandwidth" in its place.</p><p>No one is going to take Benoit up on his offer because there is nothing to be gained either way for the telcos, and there is no point in giving this attention whore any credibility by responding to him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We are n't getting the advertised bandwidth !
Waaah ! Richard Bennett 's response is worth the read , and it puts Benoit 's theory of " fair bandwidth " in its place.No one is going to take Benoit up on his offer because there is nothing to be gained either way for the telcos , and there is no point in giving this attention whore any credibility by responding to him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We aren't getting the advertised bandwidth!
Waaah!Richard Bennett's response is worth the read, and it puts Benoit's theory of "fair bandwidth" in its place.No one is going to take Benoit up on his offer because there is nothing to be gained either way for the telcos, and there is no point in giving this attention whore any credibility by responding to him.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324652</id>
	<title>Re:Bandwidth can be hogged - I've seen it</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1259946660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You pay for a 70Mbps connection. The ISP is saying that if you buy that service and then have the audacity to use the service you buy you're doing something wrong. Taking up 60Mbps and leaving 10Mbps for your roommate is one thing, but if the two of you are paying for 70Mbps you should get to use it.</p><p>The ISP should be required to provide the service paid for. If they throttle, they should be required to specify say 70Mbps instantaneous rate 10Mbps sustained, for example. That would provide a clear description of the product they offer. Anything less is false advertising.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You pay for a 70Mbps connection .
The ISP is saying that if you buy that service and then have the audacity to use the service you buy you 're doing something wrong .
Taking up 60Mbps and leaving 10Mbps for your roommate is one thing , but if the two of you are paying for 70Mbps you should get to use it.The ISP should be required to provide the service paid for .
If they throttle , they should be required to specify say 70Mbps instantaneous rate 10Mbps sustained , for example .
That would provide a clear description of the product they offer .
Anything less is false advertising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You pay for a 70Mbps connection.
The ISP is saying that if you buy that service and then have the audacity to use the service you buy you're doing something wrong.
Taking up 60Mbps and leaving 10Mbps for your roommate is one thing, but if the two of you are paying for 70Mbps you should get to use it.The ISP should be required to provide the service paid for.
If they throttle, they should be required to specify say 70Mbps instantaneous rate 10Mbps sustained, for example.
That would provide a clear description of the product they offer.
Anything less is false advertising.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30333614</id>
	<title>Re:I do it too</title>
	<author>cerberusss</author>
	<datestamp>1260007860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If there's a pattern to who you refuse service to, it can get you into big trouble. For instance, if you consistently refuse service to black people, you are in violation of a number of civil rights laws.</p></div><p>I is tellin' ya, they all are a goddam' bunch-'a file-sharin' carrrriminals!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If there 's a pattern to who you refuse service to , it can get you into big trouble .
For instance , if you consistently refuse service to black people , you are in violation of a number of civil rights laws.I is tellin ' ya , they all are a goddam ' bunch-'a file-sharin ' carrrriminals !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there's a pattern to who you refuse service to, it can get you into big trouble.
For instance, if you consistently refuse service to black people, you are in violation of a number of civil rights laws.I is tellin' ya, they all are a goddam' bunch-'a file-sharin' carrrriminals!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325288</id>
	<title>Bandwidth Pig</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259949180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a.k.a ManBearPig!!!!!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a.k.a ManBearPig ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a.k.a ManBearPig!!!!!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30327776</id>
	<title>I say screw em</title>
	<author>ILuvRamen</author>
	<datestamp>1259959620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What are the options here?  Upgrade their network to pretend like everyone will use the max speed like 75\% of the time and charge me $300/month for internet to make up the expense OR disconnect someone that's taking up the same amount of bandwidth as 100 other average users.  That's 100 customers worth and they're paying 1/100th as much for what that service would cost.  I say kick em out. I'm a web designer and a very busy geek in general who uses youtube and Hulu and online games and I still don't even come close to the assholes that run downloads basically 24/7 just because they can and they're greedy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What are the options here ?
Upgrade their network to pretend like everyone will use the max speed like 75 \ % of the time and charge me $ 300/month for internet to make up the expense OR disconnect someone that 's taking up the same amount of bandwidth as 100 other average users .
That 's 100 customers worth and they 're paying 1/100th as much for what that service would cost .
I say kick em out .
I 'm a web designer and a very busy geek in general who uses youtube and Hulu and online games and I still do n't even come close to the assholes that run downloads basically 24/7 just because they can and they 're greedy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are the options here?
Upgrade their network to pretend like everyone will use the max speed like 75\% of the time and charge me $300/month for internet to make up the expense OR disconnect someone that's taking up the same amount of bandwidth as 100 other average users.
That's 100 customers worth and they're paying 1/100th as much for what that service would cost.
I say kick em out.
I'm a web designer and a very busy geek in general who uses youtube and Hulu and online games and I still don't even come close to the assholes that run downloads basically 24/7 just because they can and they're greedy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324356</id>
	<title>The "bandwidth hogs" aren't using TCP</title>
	<author>afidel</author>
	<datestamp>1259945460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>They are generally using UDP so the original assertion that degrading the other users experience should be true as UDP should break down long before TCP does. Though I do agree that if Comcast's system works as described it's probably the best solution for a network that can't implement QoS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are generally using UDP so the original assertion that degrading the other users experience should be true as UDP should break down long before TCP does .
Though I do agree that if Comcast 's system works as described it 's probably the best solution for a network that ca n't implement QoS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are generally using UDP so the original assertion that degrading the other users experience should be true as UDP should break down long before TCP does.
Though I do agree that if Comcast's system works as described it's probably the best solution for a network that can't implement QoS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325832</id>
	<title>Pareto principle</title>
	<author>jd2112</author>
	<datestamp>1259951580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Pareto Principle is well known in both IT and Businesss circles. It states that for many events roughly 80\% of the effects come from 20\% of the causes. (This is sometimes called the 80/20 rule) So it should not have suprised anyone that a fairly small group of so-called "bandwidth hogs" use most of the bandwidth. Since this is well known (Even MBA-holding PHBs should have heard of it) I have always called BS when ISPs bring up the bandwidth hog boogeyman.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Pareto Principle is well known in both IT and Businesss circles .
It states that for many events roughly 80 \ % of the effects come from 20 \ % of the causes .
( This is sometimes called the 80/20 rule ) So it should not have suprised anyone that a fairly small group of so-called " bandwidth hogs " use most of the bandwidth .
Since this is well known ( Even MBA-holding PHBs should have heard of it ) I have always called BS when ISPs bring up the bandwidth hog boogeyman .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Pareto Principle is well known in both IT and Businesss circles.
It states that for many events roughly 80\% of the effects come from 20\% of the causes.
(This is sometimes called the 80/20 rule) So it should not have suprised anyone that a fairly small group of so-called "bandwidth hogs" use most of the bandwidth.
Since this is well known (Even MBA-holding PHBs should have heard of it) I have always called BS when ISPs bring up the bandwidth hog boogeyman.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324810</id>
	<title>I do it too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259947320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I also go through my client list and drop those that consume more of my time and resources in favour of the easier clients who ultimately improve my business at a lesser cost.  What's wrong with that?  My company, my rules.  "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"  --  it's in every restaurant.  Why would you expect a business to serve you?  Why would you consider it a right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I also go through my client list and drop those that consume more of my time and resources in favour of the easier clients who ultimately improve my business at a lesser cost .
What 's wrong with that ?
My company , my rules .
" We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone " -- it 's in every restaurant .
Why would you expect a business to serve you ?
Why would you consider it a right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also go through my client list and drop those that consume more of my time and resources in favour of the easier clients who ultimately improve my business at a lesser cost.
What's wrong with that?
My company, my rules.
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"  --  it's in every restaurant.
Why would you expect a business to serve you?
Why would you consider it a right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324642</id>
	<title>Re:Bandwidth can be hogged - I've seen it</title>
	<author>randallman</author>
	<datestamp>1259946600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This could just be a problem with your router.  Maybe it struggles to handle all of the torrent connections.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This could just be a problem with your router .
Maybe it struggles to handle all of the torrent connections .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This could just be a problem with your router.
Maybe it struggles to handle all of the torrent connections.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325536</id>
	<title>This should be obvious</title>
	<author>damn\_registrars</author>
	<datestamp>1259950200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why would any business cancel paying customers that don't negatively impact operations?</p></div><p>
They do it so they can tell the paying customers that they have to purchase "premium" access to maintain their use level.  They know that there are plenty of people out there who are willing to do so.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would any business cancel paying customers that do n't negatively impact operations ?
They do it so they can tell the paying customers that they have to purchase " premium " access to maintain their use level .
They know that there are plenty of people out there who are willing to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would any business cancel paying customers that don't negatively impact operations?
They do it so they can tell the paying customers that they have to purchase "premium" access to maintain their use level.
They know that there are plenty of people out there who are willing to do so.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324982</id>
	<title>Re:Bandwidth can be hogged - I've seen it</title>
	<author>bws111</author>
	<datestamp>1259948040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You pay for an 'up to' 70Mbps connection.  'Up to' means exactly what is sounds like - you are never going to go above that rate.  It says absolutely nothing about the minimum or average rate.  Since they make no claims at all about minimum or average rate, there is no false advertising.  Every consumer is well familiar with what 'up to' means.  How many times do you see an ad that says 'Sale!  Save up to 50\%'.  Does that imply that you are in fact going to save 50\% on everything you buy?  No, it implies that somewhere in the store is at least one item that is 50\% off - every other item may be full price, or more likely, discounted at a rate less than 50\%.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You pay for an 'up to ' 70Mbps connection .
'Up to ' means exactly what is sounds like - you are never going to go above that rate .
It says absolutely nothing about the minimum or average rate .
Since they make no claims at all about minimum or average rate , there is no false advertising .
Every consumer is well familiar with what 'up to ' means .
How many times do you see an ad that says 'Sale !
Save up to 50 \ % ' .
Does that imply that you are in fact going to save 50 \ % on everything you buy ?
No , it implies that somewhere in the store is at least one item that is 50 \ % off - every other item may be full price , or more likely , discounted at a rate less than 50 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You pay for an 'up to' 70Mbps connection.
'Up to' means exactly what is sounds like - you are never going to go above that rate.
It says absolutely nothing about the minimum or average rate.
Since they make no claims at all about minimum or average rate, there is no false advertising.
Every consumer is well familiar with what 'up to' means.
How many times do you see an ad that says 'Sale!
Save up to 50\%'.
Does that imply that you are in fact going to save 50\% on everything you buy?
No, it implies that somewhere in the store is at least one item that is 50\% off - every other item may be full price, or more likely, discounted at a rate less than 50\%.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325414</id>
	<title>Bandwidth hogs already had a name</title>
	<author>dhall</author>
	<datestamp>1259949660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought bandwidth hogs had a name already.  They were called spammers.</p><p>Unlike streaming technology that is consistent and less likely to impact other users on the same network (unless they're attempting to stream the same thing from the same sites), spam tends to be bursty and disruptive for other network users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought bandwidth hogs had a name already .
They were called spammers.Unlike streaming technology that is consistent and less likely to impact other users on the same network ( unless they 're attempting to stream the same thing from the same sites ) , spam tends to be bursty and disruptive for other network users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought bandwidth hogs had a name already.
They were called spammers.Unlike streaming technology that is consistent and less likely to impact other users on the same network (unless they're attempting to stream the same thing from the same sites), spam tends to be bursty and disruptive for other network users.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30327070</id>
	<title>Re:Same tired argument</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259956500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps this is a bit off-topic, but my telecom offers 4 tiers of service:<br> <br>
768Kb/s - $19.95/Mo<br>
1.5 Mbs - $25.00/Mo<br>
3 Mbs - $30.00/Mo<br>
6 Mbs - $35.00/Mo<br> <br>
I have purchased the $35.00 a month plan (6 Mbs) yet in 6 months, I have never seen a single download exceed 400K/s -- should it be ok for them to charge me more than $19.95 for that month since I was only <b>delivered</b> their bottom tier?<br> <br>
It is a different branch from the same, corrupt tree.  A very shady tree.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps this is a bit off-topic , but my telecom offers 4 tiers of service : 768Kb/s - $ 19.95/Mo 1.5 Mbs - $ 25.00/Mo 3 Mbs - $ 30.00/Mo 6 Mbs - $ 35.00/Mo I have purchased the $ 35.00 a month plan ( 6 Mbs ) yet in 6 months , I have never seen a single download exceed 400K/s -- should it be ok for them to charge me more than $ 19.95 for that month since I was only delivered their bottom tier ?
It is a different branch from the same , corrupt tree .
A very shady tree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps this is a bit off-topic, but my telecom offers 4 tiers of service: 
768Kb/s - $19.95/Mo
1.5 Mbs - $25.00/Mo
3 Mbs - $30.00/Mo
6 Mbs - $35.00/Mo 
I have purchased the $35.00 a month plan (6 Mbs) yet in 6 months, I have never seen a single download exceed 400K/s -- should it be ok for them to charge me more than $19.95 for that month since I was only delivered their bottom tier?
It is a different branch from the same, corrupt tree.
A very shady tree.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324996</id>
	<title>Elusive?</title>
	<author>2names</author>
	<datestamp>1259948100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ted Nugent has 10 of these hanging on his walls.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ted Nugent has 10 of these hanging on his walls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ted Nugent has 10 of these hanging on his walls.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325496</id>
	<title>Re:No site has ever been slashdotted</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1259950020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Token-Ring is even more resiliant at layer 4 than Ethernet.  You can approach 99\% utilization on Token-Ring (I have on a production LAN for weeks on end) where Ethernet is pretty much congested arount 16\%.  Don't believe me, ask <a href="http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/classic-tech/?p=115" title="com.com">around</a> [com.com].</p><p>And until we got 100Base-T, Token-Ring was just plain faster then 10Base-T.    I had this fight with an applicaiton developer that claimed that our 16MB Token-Ring was hampering his app's performance.  We went to 100Base-T at no small expense (5 blades 48 ports each in a Chipcom/IBM chassis).  NO fix.  Of course, it was the servers.  Or the disk drives.  Or the coffee.  Whatever.</p><p>Alas, Token-Ring is no longer competitive, but no loss.  IBM charged too much, and Olicom couldn't keep up.  100MB Token and switching could have worked, but Gigabit Ethernet is more than good enough.  Not many LANS have any hardware available to fill that pipe.</p><p>Imagine a beacon event at 10GBs.  You might see the wires glow...</p><p>Yes, I miss Token-Ring.  Don't hate the player, hate the game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Token-Ring is even more resiliant at layer 4 than Ethernet .
You can approach 99 \ % utilization on Token-Ring ( I have on a production LAN for weeks on end ) where Ethernet is pretty much congested arount 16 \ % .
Do n't believe me , ask around [ com.com ] .And until we got 100Base-T , Token-Ring was just plain faster then 10Base-T. I had this fight with an applicaiton developer that claimed that our 16MB Token-Ring was hampering his app 's performance .
We went to 100Base-T at no small expense ( 5 blades 48 ports each in a Chipcom/IBM chassis ) .
NO fix .
Of course , it was the servers .
Or the disk drives .
Or the coffee .
Whatever.Alas , Token-Ring is no longer competitive , but no loss .
IBM charged too much , and Olicom could n't keep up .
100MB Token and switching could have worked , but Gigabit Ethernet is more than good enough .
Not many LANS have any hardware available to fill that pipe.Imagine a beacon event at 10GBs .
You might see the wires glow...Yes , I miss Token-Ring .
Do n't hate the player , hate the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Token-Ring is even more resiliant at layer 4 than Ethernet.
You can approach 99\% utilization on Token-Ring (I have on a production LAN for weeks on end) where Ethernet is pretty much congested arount 16\%.
Don't believe me, ask around [com.com].And until we got 100Base-T, Token-Ring was just plain faster then 10Base-T.    I had this fight with an applicaiton developer that claimed that our 16MB Token-Ring was hampering his app's performance.
We went to 100Base-T at no small expense (5 blades 48 ports each in a Chipcom/IBM chassis).
NO fix.
Of course, it was the servers.
Or the disk drives.
Or the coffee.
Whatever.Alas, Token-Ring is no longer competitive, but no loss.
IBM charged too much, and Olicom couldn't keep up.
100MB Token and switching could have worked, but Gigabit Ethernet is more than good enough.
Not many LANS have any hardware available to fill that pipe.Imagine a beacon event at 10GBs.
You might see the wires glow...Yes, I miss Token-Ring.
Don't hate the player, hate the game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30328478</id>
	<title>Re:Same tired argument</title>
	<author>jaraxle</author>
	<datestamp>1259919360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/5/1/fivefold-mother/" title="penny-arcade.com">Oblig. Penny Arcade</a> [penny-arcade.com]</p><p>~jaraxle</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oblig .
Penny Arcade [ penny-arcade.com ] ~ jaraxle</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oblig.
Penny Arcade [penny-arcade.com]~jaraxle</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325526</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>morethanapapercert</author>
	<datestamp>1259950200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because the ISP's discovered they could sell something they didn't actually have, this is called over-subscription. In theory, if you have a 100 Mbps backbone, you can grant a 10 Mbps connection to each of ten customers 24/7/365. The reality is that most customers don't use all the bandwidth they are allotted and some of the most bandwidth intensive things they *do* use are pretty tolerant of delays (AKA latency, if BitTorrent or a properly buffered video stream gets another 50 ms delay, nobody's really going to notice). This allows the ISP to grant access to that 100 Mbps connection to, just for the sake of argument, 15 customers allowing for higher profits or more competitive pricing, guess which option they chose?
 As long as those 15 users keep thier bandwidth usage within the predicted levels, nobody notices and the ISP coins money hand over fist. The problem comes when a small minority actually use all the bandwidth they have paid for. If one or two of those people use all the bandwidth they are allowed, now the connection will only support 11 or 12 total users without causing acceptable delays. But there is still 15 connected to it, so the ISP starts getting calls from the 5 or 6 people who are affected the worst, complaining about a slow connection. To complicate matters, ISP's will routinely sell you a 10 MB/s connection but actually allow your modem to get a bit more than that just to be on the safe side, so heavy users could actually be getting more than they have contracted for. Video streaming could max out even that extra allotment, but generally for short periods, say two hours max and only when the customer is at the computer. BitTorrent and other P2P apps though, are capable of maxing out the connection and doing so for hours or even days. Another factor to consider is that many ISP offering are not symmetrical, they allot far less upload bandwidth than download bandwidth. Email, web surfing and video streaming all use relatively little upload bandwidth, but P2P apps can and do use a lot more, making the effect on upload far more noticable on upload speeds.
So, if you were an ISP and you had a very small minority whose usage patterns were slowing everybody elses connection down, what are you gonna do about it? You basically have 4 options:<p>
1)buy more bandwidth from your backbone provider and invest in upgraded infrastructure = very expensive, cuts profits, unhappy shareholders<br>
2)employ traffic shaping so that the applications you can identify get throttled back. = relatively minor infrastructure changes, slightly reduced profits until the new equipment is paid for.<br>
3)change your terms of service and employ monitoring tools (you probably already have these) that can ID those heavy users so that you can drop customers who do this. = A minor amount of bad PR, some of which can easily be spun "In order to provide the best possible service to all of our subscribers..."<br>
4) do nothing and wait until enough of the light users get fed up and cancel thier accounts, freeing up enough of the bandwidth that the remaining customers are no longer affected = losing your highest profit margin customers, developing a lot of bad reputation for being a slow provider</p><p>
From what I've read, ISP's do a mix of all four, but focus mostly on 2) and 3)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the ISP 's discovered they could sell something they did n't actually have , this is called over-subscription .
In theory , if you have a 100 Mbps backbone , you can grant a 10 Mbps connection to each of ten customers 24/7/365 .
The reality is that most customers do n't use all the bandwidth they are allotted and some of the most bandwidth intensive things they * do * use are pretty tolerant of delays ( AKA latency , if BitTorrent or a properly buffered video stream gets another 50 ms delay , nobody 's really going to notice ) .
This allows the ISP to grant access to that 100 Mbps connection to , just for the sake of argument , 15 customers allowing for higher profits or more competitive pricing , guess which option they chose ?
As long as those 15 users keep thier bandwidth usage within the predicted levels , nobody notices and the ISP coins money hand over fist .
The problem comes when a small minority actually use all the bandwidth they have paid for .
If one or two of those people use all the bandwidth they are allowed , now the connection will only support 11 or 12 total users without causing acceptable delays .
But there is still 15 connected to it , so the ISP starts getting calls from the 5 or 6 people who are affected the worst , complaining about a slow connection .
To complicate matters , ISP 's will routinely sell you a 10 MB/s connection but actually allow your modem to get a bit more than that just to be on the safe side , so heavy users could actually be getting more than they have contracted for .
Video streaming could max out even that extra allotment , but generally for short periods , say two hours max and only when the customer is at the computer .
BitTorrent and other P2P apps though , are capable of maxing out the connection and doing so for hours or even days .
Another factor to consider is that many ISP offering are not symmetrical , they allot far less upload bandwidth than download bandwidth .
Email , web surfing and video streaming all use relatively little upload bandwidth , but P2P apps can and do use a lot more , making the effect on upload far more noticable on upload speeds .
So , if you were an ISP and you had a very small minority whose usage patterns were slowing everybody elses connection down , what are you gon na do about it ?
You basically have 4 options : 1 ) buy more bandwidth from your backbone provider and invest in upgraded infrastructure = very expensive , cuts profits , unhappy shareholders 2 ) employ traffic shaping so that the applications you can identify get throttled back .
= relatively minor infrastructure changes , slightly reduced profits until the new equipment is paid for .
3 ) change your terms of service and employ monitoring tools ( you probably already have these ) that can ID those heavy users so that you can drop customers who do this .
= A minor amount of bad PR , some of which can easily be spun " In order to provide the best possible service to all of our subscribers... " 4 ) do nothing and wait until enough of the light users get fed up and cancel thier accounts , freeing up enough of the bandwidth that the remaining customers are no longer affected = losing your highest profit margin customers , developing a lot of bad reputation for being a slow provider From what I 've read , ISP 's do a mix of all four , but focus mostly on 2 ) and 3 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the ISP's discovered they could sell something they didn't actually have, this is called over-subscription.
In theory, if you have a 100 Mbps backbone, you can grant a 10 Mbps connection to each of ten customers 24/7/365.
The reality is that most customers don't use all the bandwidth they are allotted and some of the most bandwidth intensive things they *do* use are pretty tolerant of delays (AKA latency, if BitTorrent or a properly buffered video stream gets another 50 ms delay, nobody's really going to notice).
This allows the ISP to grant access to that 100 Mbps connection to, just for the sake of argument, 15 customers allowing for higher profits or more competitive pricing, guess which option they chose?
As long as those 15 users keep thier bandwidth usage within the predicted levels, nobody notices and the ISP coins money hand over fist.
The problem comes when a small minority actually use all the bandwidth they have paid for.
If one or two of those people use all the bandwidth they are allowed, now the connection will only support 11 or 12 total users without causing acceptable delays.
But there is still 15 connected to it, so the ISP starts getting calls from the 5 or 6 people who are affected the worst, complaining about a slow connection.
To complicate matters, ISP's will routinely sell you a 10 MB/s connection but actually allow your modem to get a bit more than that just to be on the safe side, so heavy users could actually be getting more than they have contracted for.
Video streaming could max out even that extra allotment, but generally for short periods, say two hours max and only when the customer is at the computer.
BitTorrent and other P2P apps though, are capable of maxing out the connection and doing so for hours or even days.
Another factor to consider is that many ISP offering are not symmetrical, they allot far less upload bandwidth than download bandwidth.
Email, web surfing and video streaming all use relatively little upload bandwidth, but P2P apps can and do use a lot more, making the effect on upload far more noticable on upload speeds.
So, if you were an ISP and you had a very small minority whose usage patterns were slowing everybody elses connection down, what are you gonna do about it?
You basically have 4 options:
1)buy more bandwidth from your backbone provider and invest in upgraded infrastructure = very expensive, cuts profits, unhappy shareholders
2)employ traffic shaping so that the applications you can identify get throttled back.
= relatively minor infrastructure changes, slightly reduced profits until the new equipment is paid for.
3)change your terms of service and employ monitoring tools (you probably already have these) that can ID those heavy users so that you can drop customers who do this.
= A minor amount of bad PR, some of which can easily be spun "In order to provide the best possible service to all of our subscribers..."
4) do nothing and wait until enough of the light users get fed up and cancel thier accounts, freeing up enough of the bandwidth that the remaining customers are no longer affected = losing your highest profit margin customers, developing a lot of bad reputation for being a slow provider
From what I've read, ISP's do a mix of all four, but focus mostly on 2) and 3)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30327972</id>
	<title>Not True</title>
	<author>Fnord666</author>
	<datestamp>1259917320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But Wes Felter corrects that mis-impression in a post to a network neutrality mailing list.</p></div>
</blockquote><blockquote><div><p>"This is definitely not true; TCP implements a pretty weak form of "fairness" that is different (and worse) than the common sense definition of the term. George Ou and Lawrence Roberts have explained this several times."</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

This must be some new definition of the word "corrects" that I am not familiar with.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But Wes Felter corrects that mis-impression in a post to a network neutrality mailing list .
" This is definitely not true ; TCP implements a pretty weak form of " fairness " that is different ( and worse ) than the common sense definition of the term .
George Ou and Lawrence Roberts have explained this several times .
" This must be some new definition of the word " corrects " that I am not familiar with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But Wes Felter corrects that mis-impression in a post to a network neutrality mailing list.
"This is definitely not true; TCP implements a pretty weak form of "fairness" that is different (and worse) than the common sense definition of the term.
George Ou and Lawrence Roberts have explained this several times.
"


This must be some new definition of the word "corrects" that I am not familiar with.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325216</id>
	<title>"a more complex implementation of TCP"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259948940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>That having said, a more complex implementation of TCP might do it differently and reduce the bitrate for all session coming from one IP-adress.</i></p><p><i>It is all a design choice.</i></p><p>No.  There is no way to change TCP to do this.  Congestion control is handled at the end hosts.  Intermediate switches and routers just fling the packets.  You can't solve a layer 2 problem at layer 3.</p><p>I work at an ISP for corporate clients and I can tell you we have customers that are "bandwidth hogs".  For instance, we have one well-known customer that uses something like 60\% of our capacity in one of our locations, a site which has hundreds of customers.  The thing is, we charge by 95p bandwidth.  This means they pay us much more than the other customers, which allows us to invest in the hardware and other infrastructure needed  to handle their traffic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That having said , a more complex implementation of TCP might do it differently and reduce the bitrate for all session coming from one IP-adress.It is all a design choice.No .
There is no way to change TCP to do this .
Congestion control is handled at the end hosts .
Intermediate switches and routers just fling the packets .
You ca n't solve a layer 2 problem at layer 3.I work at an ISP for corporate clients and I can tell you we have customers that are " bandwidth hogs " .
For instance , we have one well-known customer that uses something like 60 \ % of our capacity in one of our locations , a site which has hundreds of customers .
The thing is , we charge by 95p bandwidth .
This means they pay us much more than the other customers , which allows us to invest in the hardware and other infrastructure needed to handle their traffic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That having said, a more complex implementation of TCP might do it differently and reduce the bitrate for all session coming from one IP-adress.It is all a design choice.No.
There is no way to change TCP to do this.
Congestion control is handled at the end hosts.
Intermediate switches and routers just fling the packets.
You can't solve a layer 2 problem at layer 3.I work at an ISP for corporate clients and I can tell you we have customers that are "bandwidth hogs".
For instance, we have one well-known customer that uses something like 60\% of our capacity in one of our locations, a site which has hundreds of customers.
The thing is, we charge by 95p bandwidth.
This means they pay us much more than the other customers, which allows us to invest in the hardware and other infrastructure needed  to handle their traffic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30330086</id>
	<title>Re:Bandwidth can be hogged - I've seen it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259926440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That comparison is not relevant.  When I go into the store, individual items will be marked with the sales percent, but the ISP does not specify when or on what "download items" my connection is going to be throttled.  The "50\% Off" sale store certainly wouldn't toss me out on my ear for attempting to only buy 50\% off items and then keep my money on top of that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That comparison is not relevant .
When I go into the store , individual items will be marked with the sales percent , but the ISP does not specify when or on what " download items " my connection is going to be throttled .
The " 50 \ % Off " sale store certainly would n't toss me out on my ear for attempting to only buy 50 \ % off items and then keep my money on top of that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That comparison is not relevant.
When I go into the store, individual items will be marked with the sales percent, but the ISP does not specify when or on what "download items" my connection is going to be throttled.
The "50\% Off" sale store certainly wouldn't toss me out on my ear for attempting to only buy 50\% off items and then keep my money on top of that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30327994</id>
	<title>Re:I do it too</title>
	<author>holophrastic</author>
	<datestamp>1259917380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are called "Erline" tables.  You buy telephone service.  You pick up your land-line telephone, or any other telephone, and you get a dial-tone as your handset grabs a real physical line/channel for itself.</p><p>The problem is, there aren't enough channels for everyone to be on the phone at the same time.  It would be a huge waste of resources to have such capacity because it would generally go unused.  So the Erline tables ultimately tell telecom companies that if they have 3'000 customers, they need 450 physical lines.</p><p>This is like "slippery when wet".  It's an obvious notion that allows you to support a company that purchases 450 lines because you could never afford a company that pays for 3'000 lines.  The military chooses the latter.  Business-grade chooses something in between.  Consumer-grade gets the bottom.  That's the definition of consumer-grade.</p><p>In my business, I'd actually screw the 5 customers to keep the one big one because my business is served better by fewer larger clients, not additional smaller clients.  But you'd better believe that's exactly what I'd have done.</p><p>And it's certainly legal.  And it's certainly "right" -- whatever you want that to mean.</p><p>It's "right" because that's the only logical way that a world of business can work.  And you as a consumer don't get to dictate what structures will work outside of paying or not paying or not paying again.</p><p>And you do it personally.  Pose the very same situation, but switch business to friend, purchase to favour, and screwing with cancelling.  How many times have you cancelled on one friend for another?  Or said "I can't help you move anymore, my girlfriend wants me to go to her friend's wedding".</p><p>It's expected, it's understood.  Not everyone is of equal priority all the time.  Your girlfriend gets priority over your friend's move.  Better clients get priority over lesser clients.</p><p>I get to make reservations at The Keg.  They don't take reservations.  So I show up, there's a huge line, and I get to walk right by it.  Those in line can be upset if they want to be.  Or they can understand that in some places, they aren't as important.  I pay a lot more than they do.</p><p>Most consumers don't realize that you get to pay for priority, or get a discount for being last on the list.  You don't get to pay the low amount and also get certainty.  You pay for certainty -- that's why businesses pay more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are called " Erline " tables .
You buy telephone service .
You pick up your land-line telephone , or any other telephone , and you get a dial-tone as your handset grabs a real physical line/channel for itself.The problem is , there are n't enough channels for everyone to be on the phone at the same time .
It would be a huge waste of resources to have such capacity because it would generally go unused .
So the Erline tables ultimately tell telecom companies that if they have 3'000 customers , they need 450 physical lines.This is like " slippery when wet " .
It 's an obvious notion that allows you to support a company that purchases 450 lines because you could never afford a company that pays for 3'000 lines .
The military chooses the latter .
Business-grade chooses something in between .
Consumer-grade gets the bottom .
That 's the definition of consumer-grade.In my business , I 'd actually screw the 5 customers to keep the one big one because my business is served better by fewer larger clients , not additional smaller clients .
But you 'd better believe that 's exactly what I 'd have done.And it 's certainly legal .
And it 's certainly " right " -- whatever you want that to mean.It 's " right " because that 's the only logical way that a world of business can work .
And you as a consumer do n't get to dictate what structures will work outside of paying or not paying or not paying again.And you do it personally .
Pose the very same situation , but switch business to friend , purchase to favour , and screwing with cancelling .
How many times have you cancelled on one friend for another ?
Or said " I ca n't help you move anymore , my girlfriend wants me to go to her friend 's wedding " .It 's expected , it 's understood .
Not everyone is of equal priority all the time .
Your girlfriend gets priority over your friend 's move .
Better clients get priority over lesser clients.I get to make reservations at The Keg .
They do n't take reservations .
So I show up , there 's a huge line , and I get to walk right by it .
Those in line can be upset if they want to be .
Or they can understand that in some places , they are n't as important .
I pay a lot more than they do.Most consumers do n't realize that you get to pay for priority , or get a discount for being last on the list .
You do n't get to pay the low amount and also get certainty .
You pay for certainty -- that 's why businesses pay more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are called "Erline" tables.
You buy telephone service.
You pick up your land-line telephone, or any other telephone, and you get a dial-tone as your handset grabs a real physical line/channel for itself.The problem is, there aren't enough channels for everyone to be on the phone at the same time.
It would be a huge waste of resources to have such capacity because it would generally go unused.
So the Erline tables ultimately tell telecom companies that if they have 3'000 customers, they need 450 physical lines.This is like "slippery when wet".
It's an obvious notion that allows you to support a company that purchases 450 lines because you could never afford a company that pays for 3'000 lines.
The military chooses the latter.
Business-grade chooses something in between.
Consumer-grade gets the bottom.
That's the definition of consumer-grade.In my business, I'd actually screw the 5 customers to keep the one big one because my business is served better by fewer larger clients, not additional smaller clients.
But you'd better believe that's exactly what I'd have done.And it's certainly legal.
And it's certainly "right" -- whatever you want that to mean.It's "right" because that's the only logical way that a world of business can work.
And you as a consumer don't get to dictate what structures will work outside of paying or not paying or not paying again.And you do it personally.
Pose the very same situation, but switch business to friend, purchase to favour, and screwing with cancelling.
How many times have you cancelled on one friend for another?
Or said "I can't help you move anymore, my girlfriend wants me to go to her friend's wedding".It's expected, it's understood.
Not everyone is of equal priority all the time.
Your girlfriend gets priority over your friend's move.
Better clients get priority over lesser clients.I get to make reservations at The Keg.
They don't take reservations.
So I show up, there's a huge line, and I get to walk right by it.
Those in line can be upset if they want to be.
Or they can understand that in some places, they aren't as important.
I pay a lot more than they do.Most consumers don't realize that you get to pay for priority, or get a discount for being last on the list.
You don't get to pay the low amount and also get certainty.
You pay for certainty -- that's why businesses pay more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325306</id>
	<title>Re:I do it too</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1259949240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>because the net have become as integral to modern life as water and electricity?</p><p>with a restaurant, one can go somewhere else to get a ready meal, or one can make ones of by parts sold almost anywhere. The net however is not something one can make at home if needed, and rarely one find more then 2 suppliers (or even that many) in a area...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>because the net have become as integral to modern life as water and electricity ? with a restaurant , one can go somewhere else to get a ready meal , or one can make ones of by parts sold almost anywhere .
The net however is not something one can make at home if needed , and rarely one find more then 2 suppliers ( or even that many ) in a area.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because the net have become as integral to modern life as water and electricity?with a restaurant, one can go somewhere else to get a ready meal, or one can make ones of by parts sold almost anywhere.
The net however is not something one can make at home if needed, and rarely one find more then 2 suppliers (or even that many) in a area...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324706</id>
	<title>Re:Bandwidth can be hogged - I've seen it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259946900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have personally witnessed hogging of bandwidth</p> </div><p>You missed the point slightly.</p><p>If a roommate is hogging your apartment's bandwidth, you can't extend that to say that he must be hogging the entire network. He is just filling up the pipline to your single apartment.</p><p>The correct metaphor would be if each roommate paid for a separate internet connection, and when one roommate ramped up bittorrent, the other two's connections dropped. THAT would prove the existence of a "Bandwidth Hog"</p><p>But point of the article is that all apartments in your area (for example) get equal distribution of bandwidth.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have personally witnessed hogging of bandwidth You missed the point slightly.If a roommate is hogging your apartment 's bandwidth , you ca n't extend that to say that he must be hogging the entire network .
He is just filling up the pipline to your single apartment.The correct metaphor would be if each roommate paid for a separate internet connection , and when one roommate ramped up bittorrent , the other two 's connections dropped .
THAT would prove the existence of a " Bandwidth Hog " But point of the article is that all apartments in your area ( for example ) get equal distribution of bandwidth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have personally witnessed hogging of bandwidth You missed the point slightly.If a roommate is hogging your apartment's bandwidth, you can't extend that to say that he must be hogging the entire network.
He is just filling up the pipline to your single apartment.The correct metaphor would be if each roommate paid for a separate internet connection, and when one roommate ramped up bittorrent, the other two's connections dropped.
THAT would prove the existence of a "Bandwidth Hog"But point of the article is that all apartments in your area (for example) get equal distribution of bandwidth.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324406</id>
	<title>Who?</title>
	<author>thelonious</author>
	<datestamp>1259945580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the telcos are like, "Felten who?  Yeah, we'll get right on that"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the telcos are like , " Felten who ?
Yeah , we 'll get right on that "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the telcos are like, "Felten who?
Yeah, we'll get right on that"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324650</id>
	<title>Re:Bandwidth can be hogged - I've seen it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259946660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nice anecdote.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice anecdote .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice anecdote.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325656</id>
	<title>Now that Comcast owns control in NBC</title>
	<author>keytohwy</author>
	<datestamp>1259950860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder if this just gets worse.  Or traffic shaping to legit sites like Hulu, but degraded if I want the same content from iTunes or Amazon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if this just gets worse .
Or traffic shaping to legit sites like Hulu , but degraded if I want the same content from iTunes or Amazon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if this just gets worse.
Or traffic shaping to legit sites like Hulu, but degraded if I want the same content from iTunes or Amazon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325140</id>
	<title>Re:I do it too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259948640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I run an all-you-can-eat buffet. If you eat more than the other patrons, I handcuff you to your chair! It's my business, after all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I run an all-you-can-eat buffet .
If you eat more than the other patrons , I handcuff you to your chair !
It 's my business , after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I run an all-you-can-eat buffet.
If you eat more than the other patrons, I handcuff you to your chair!
It's my business, after all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324688</id>
	<title>Re:Bandwidth can be hogged - I've seen it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259946780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, if I understand this statement, if a user is hogging all the bandwidth until no one gets any connectivity - since it is all the same it is totally fair.  One user can bottleneck the pipes, but since their stuff isn't fast any more either, we're all good?</p><p>I agree totally.  It sounds like some journalist found out how TCP/IP works \_on paper\_ and decided to write a story.  Though I like his intentions, he misrepresents the way things actually work for users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , if I understand this statement , if a user is hogging all the bandwidth until no one gets any connectivity - since it is all the same it is totally fair .
One user can bottleneck the pipes , but since their stuff is n't fast any more either , we 're all good ? I agree totally .
It sounds like some journalist found out how TCP/IP works \ _on paper \ _ and decided to write a story .
Though I like his intentions , he misrepresents the way things actually work for users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, if I understand this statement, if a user is hogging all the bandwidth until no one gets any connectivity - since it is all the same it is totally fair.
One user can bottleneck the pipes, but since their stuff isn't fast any more either, we're all good?I agree totally.
It sounds like some journalist found out how TCP/IP works \_on paper\_ and decided to write a story.
Though I like his intentions, he misrepresents the way things actually work for users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30332318</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1259944200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your analogy is flawed, a better analogy would be this:</p><p>Does traffic in Redmond increase when Microsoft employees get off work?  Knowing someone who lived there, I can say yes, yes it does, and very, very badly.  Well, your Modem is like Microsoft, and each packet you send is like an employee.  When you unleash those packets at a rate of 1.25 million every second (around 10mbps), you can bet your ass it causes more traffic than someone who sends them out at less than 200 thousand every second (around 1.5mbps).</p><p>All of those packets must be forwarded by a switch to a router, which must process it and route it to it's next destination - probably another router, which must process it again, maybe this time sending it over a large network trunk, where it gets routed again, and routed again, then forwarded before landing at the destination modem.</p><p>100\% of the latency you see is caused by the switches, routers, and modems on the net.  These devices are extremely fast, but each and every packet must be at least partially read by each and every device between the sender and the reciever, and depending on the type of device it must use more or less processing power to determine the destination.</p><p>There is <b>no</b> limit to how much data can move across a wire, be it copper or fiber.  There is also virtually <b>no</b> delay between when the data leaves the modem and when it reaches the first node in its journey - regardless of the technology (copper or fiber) the data moves across these wires at the speed of light.  But there is <b>definitely</b> a limit to how many packets a router can process at a time (fiber tends to be faster because with optics they can use simpler modulation techniques than with copper), and if you are sending more packets per second than your neighbor is, you are <b>definitely</b> causing more traffic than they are.</p><p>Now, whether or not the highways are backed up depends on how well the ISPs have built their infrastructure relative to how many cars they said their highway could handle.  They may have told you you'd be able to send out 1.25 million cars per second, but if they told the same thing to 1,000 other people, well at some point they started lying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your analogy is flawed , a better analogy would be this : Does traffic in Redmond increase when Microsoft employees get off work ?
Knowing someone who lived there , I can say yes , yes it does , and very , very badly .
Well , your Modem is like Microsoft , and each packet you send is like an employee .
When you unleash those packets at a rate of 1.25 million every second ( around 10mbps ) , you can bet your ass it causes more traffic than someone who sends them out at less than 200 thousand every second ( around 1.5mbps ) .All of those packets must be forwarded by a switch to a router , which must process it and route it to it 's next destination - probably another router , which must process it again , maybe this time sending it over a large network trunk , where it gets routed again , and routed again , then forwarded before landing at the destination modem.100 \ % of the latency you see is caused by the switches , routers , and modems on the net .
These devices are extremely fast , but each and every packet must be at least partially read by each and every device between the sender and the reciever , and depending on the type of device it must use more or less processing power to determine the destination.There is no limit to how much data can move across a wire , be it copper or fiber .
There is also virtually no delay between when the data leaves the modem and when it reaches the first node in its journey - regardless of the technology ( copper or fiber ) the data moves across these wires at the speed of light .
But there is definitely a limit to how many packets a router can process at a time ( fiber tends to be faster because with optics they can use simpler modulation techniques than with copper ) , and if you are sending more packets per second than your neighbor is , you are definitely causing more traffic than they are.Now , whether or not the highways are backed up depends on how well the ISPs have built their infrastructure relative to how many cars they said their highway could handle .
They may have told you you 'd be able to send out 1.25 million cars per second , but if they told the same thing to 1,000 other people , well at some point they started lying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your analogy is flawed, a better analogy would be this:Does traffic in Redmond increase when Microsoft employees get off work?
Knowing someone who lived there, I can say yes, yes it does, and very, very badly.
Well, your Modem is like Microsoft, and each packet you send is like an employee.
When you unleash those packets at a rate of 1.25 million every second (around 10mbps), you can bet your ass it causes more traffic than someone who sends them out at less than 200 thousand every second (around 1.5mbps).All of those packets must be forwarded by a switch to a router, which must process it and route it to it's next destination - probably another router, which must process it again, maybe this time sending it over a large network trunk, where it gets routed again, and routed again, then forwarded before landing at the destination modem.100\% of the latency you see is caused by the switches, routers, and modems on the net.
These devices are extremely fast, but each and every packet must be at least partially read by each and every device between the sender and the reciever, and depending on the type of device it must use more or less processing power to determine the destination.There is no limit to how much data can move across a wire, be it copper or fiber.
There is also virtually no delay between when the data leaves the modem and when it reaches the first node in its journey - regardless of the technology (copper or fiber) the data moves across these wires at the speed of light.
But there is definitely a limit to how many packets a router can process at a time (fiber tends to be faster because with optics they can use simpler modulation techniques than with copper), and if you are sending more packets per second than your neighbor is, you are definitely causing more traffic than they are.Now, whether or not the highways are backed up depends on how well the ISPs have built their infrastructure relative to how many cars they said their highway could handle.
They may have told you you'd be able to send out 1.25 million cars per second, but if they told the same thing to 1,000 other people, well at some point they started lying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30326132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324554</id>
	<title>Re:The "bandwidth hogs" aren't using TCP</title>
	<author>FrankDerKte</author>
	<datestamp>1259946180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, bandwidth hogs normally use file sharing which is implemented with tcp (i. e. bit torrent).</p><p>The problem is tcp distributes bandwidth per connection. Someone using more connection gets a bigger part of the available bandwidth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , bandwidth hogs normally use file sharing which is implemented with tcp ( i. e. bit torrent ) .The problem is tcp distributes bandwidth per connection .
Someone using more connection gets a bigger part of the available bandwidth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, bandwidth hogs normally use file sharing which is implemented with tcp (i. e. bit torrent).The problem is tcp distributes bandwidth per connection.
Someone using more connection gets a bigger part of the available bandwidth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325144</id>
	<title>Re:I do it too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259948640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes I do consider it a right when in my country we have publicly subsidized large portion of their network...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes I do consider it a right when in my country we have publicly subsidized large portion of their network.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes I do consider it a right when in my country we have publicly subsidized large portion of their network...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325436</id>
	<title>Network saturation</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1259949840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There have been times when telephone networks, wireless networks, and utilities have been knocked offline due to too much demand.  Most utilities have "turn off" agreements with heavy industrial users who can tolerate a shutdown in exchange for a concession, such as a lower rate, to ensure consumers still have service.</p><p>Even that doesn't work.  Witness the jammed cell-phone lines after a major event or in days of yore jammed long-distance phone lines on holidays.</p><p>Cutting off or throttling heavy users during times when the network is saturated is sensible.  A more sensible route is to charge by the GB or TB, as long as the charge is fair and reasonable.</p><p>A fair and reasonable charge would be "X" for your initial allowance plus Y for every block of bytes after that point.  X would cover fixed costs such as the cost of billing.  On a per-byte basis, X would be higher than Y.  A fair and reasonable charge could include time-of-week-sensitive, bitrate-sensitive, and quality-of-service-sensitive billing.  For example, there could be a 20\% surcharge during afternoon and evening hours, a discount when you voluntarily throttle to a very low bitrate, or a discount when you accept a lower quality of service, such as for bulk file transfers.</p><p>Involuntary speed reductions or QOS reductions could be imposed on either heavy users or those users who volunteered for them in exchange for a discount when the network is saturated.  These should not last more than the duration of the saturation, and the effect should be spread around in a fair way.  Of course, since customers are paying by the bit and paying higher for higher-rate/higher-quality transmission, every time a service provider did this they would be hurting their revenue stream, at least a little.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There have been times when telephone networks , wireless networks , and utilities have been knocked offline due to too much demand .
Most utilities have " turn off " agreements with heavy industrial users who can tolerate a shutdown in exchange for a concession , such as a lower rate , to ensure consumers still have service.Even that does n't work .
Witness the jammed cell-phone lines after a major event or in days of yore jammed long-distance phone lines on holidays.Cutting off or throttling heavy users during times when the network is saturated is sensible .
A more sensible route is to charge by the GB or TB , as long as the charge is fair and reasonable.A fair and reasonable charge would be " X " for your initial allowance plus Y for every block of bytes after that point .
X would cover fixed costs such as the cost of billing .
On a per-byte basis , X would be higher than Y. A fair and reasonable charge could include time-of-week-sensitive , bitrate-sensitive , and quality-of-service-sensitive billing .
For example , there could be a 20 \ % surcharge during afternoon and evening hours , a discount when you voluntarily throttle to a very low bitrate , or a discount when you accept a lower quality of service , such as for bulk file transfers.Involuntary speed reductions or QOS reductions could be imposed on either heavy users or those users who volunteered for them in exchange for a discount when the network is saturated .
These should not last more than the duration of the saturation , and the effect should be spread around in a fair way .
Of course , since customers are paying by the bit and paying higher for higher-rate/higher-quality transmission , every time a service provider did this they would be hurting their revenue stream , at least a little .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There have been times when telephone networks, wireless networks, and utilities have been knocked offline due to too much demand.
Most utilities have "turn off" agreements with heavy industrial users who can tolerate a shutdown in exchange for a concession, such as a lower rate, to ensure consumers still have service.Even that doesn't work.
Witness the jammed cell-phone lines after a major event or in days of yore jammed long-distance phone lines on holidays.Cutting off or throttling heavy users during times when the network is saturated is sensible.
A more sensible route is to charge by the GB or TB, as long as the charge is fair and reasonable.A fair and reasonable charge would be "X" for your initial allowance plus Y for every block of bytes after that point.
X would cover fixed costs such as the cost of billing.
On a per-byte basis, X would be higher than Y.  A fair and reasonable charge could include time-of-week-sensitive, bitrate-sensitive, and quality-of-service-sensitive billing.
For example, there could be a 20\% surcharge during afternoon and evening hours, a discount when you voluntarily throttle to a very low bitrate, or a discount when you accept a lower quality of service, such as for bulk file transfers.Involuntary speed reductions or QOS reductions could be imposed on either heavy users or those users who volunteered for them in exchange for a discount when the network is saturated.
These should not last more than the duration of the saturation, and the effect should be spread around in a fair way.
Of course, since customers are paying by the bit and paying higher for higher-rate/higher-quality transmission, every time a service provider did this they would be hurting their revenue stream, at least a little.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324730</id>
	<title>Re:Bandwidth can be hogged - I've seen it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259947020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Turns out the roommate was ramping up torrents of anime shows he wanted to watch while he was gone.  He was aware of the impact to his own internet experience, and so ramped it back down when he wanted to use it himself.</p><p>If that's not hogging bandwidth, I'm not too sure what is.</p></div><p>This is not the same thing - your brother's roommate is hogging the single bandwidth-limited connection from the residence to the net.  It would matter if the roomie's torrent affected the folks in the next house over by clogging the connection from the curbside unit to the backbone.</p><p>This argument is not about the rate limit to your house.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Turns out the roommate was ramping up torrents of anime shows he wanted to watch while he was gone .
He was aware of the impact to his own internet experience , and so ramped it back down when he wanted to use it himself.If that 's not hogging bandwidth , I 'm not too sure what is.This is not the same thing - your brother 's roommate is hogging the single bandwidth-limited connection from the residence to the net .
It would matter if the roomie 's torrent affected the folks in the next house over by clogging the connection from the curbside unit to the backbone.This argument is not about the rate limit to your house .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Turns out the roommate was ramping up torrents of anime shows he wanted to watch while he was gone.
He was aware of the impact to his own internet experience, and so ramped it back down when he wanted to use it himself.If that's not hogging bandwidth, I'm not too sure what is.This is not the same thing - your brother's roommate is hogging the single bandwidth-limited connection from the residence to the net.
It would matter if the roomie's torrent affected the folks in the next house over by clogging the connection from the curbside unit to the backbone.This argument is not about the rate limit to your house.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30327406</id>
	<title>Re:Bandwidth can be hogged - I've seen it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259958000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a crap fix. The correct fix is to prioritise traffic so that BT traffic is left until last. That way he'll still get maximum speed downloads when nobody is using the internet, when they are, they won't notice the torrents. This has been possible with consumer level hardware for at least 10 years so I don't know why the ISPs can't manage to do it without limiting certain user's bandwidth regardless of the current network utilization or even disconnecting people entirely. Wait, I do know - it's because they're rip-off artists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a crap fix .
The correct fix is to prioritise traffic so that BT traffic is left until last .
That way he 'll still get maximum speed downloads when nobody is using the internet , when they are , they wo n't notice the torrents .
This has been possible with consumer level hardware for at least 10 years so I do n't know why the ISPs ca n't manage to do it without limiting certain user 's bandwidth regardless of the current network utilization or even disconnecting people entirely .
Wait , I do know - it 's because they 're rip-off artists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a crap fix.
The correct fix is to prioritise traffic so that BT traffic is left until last.
That way he'll still get maximum speed downloads when nobody is using the internet, when they are, they won't notice the torrents.
This has been possible with consumer level hardware for at least 10 years so I don't know why the ISPs can't manage to do it without limiting certain user's bandwidth regardless of the current network utilization or even disconnecting people entirely.
Wait, I do know - it's because they're rip-off artists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30328032</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259917620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Many ISPs are now offering tiered service, locally both COX and Qwest offer multiple bandwidth tiers.  Though that is a single area, and Comcast, AT&amp;T and other operate a bit differently, usually without any competition in a given area.  In the Prescott, AZ area, Cable One is generally far crappier than anything I can get in the city, they throttle you down more than even their TOS and help sites say.  You can't watch hulu or netflix for more than a couple hours without you being throttled to below a 400kbps stream can run on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many ISPs are now offering tiered service , locally both COX and Qwest offer multiple bandwidth tiers .
Though that is a single area , and Comcast , AT&amp;T and other operate a bit differently , usually without any competition in a given area .
In the Prescott , AZ area , Cable One is generally far crappier than anything I can get in the city , they throttle you down more than even their TOS and help sites say .
You ca n't watch hulu or netflix for more than a couple hours without you being throttled to below a 400kbps stream can run on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many ISPs are now offering tiered service, locally both COX and Qwest offer multiple bandwidth tiers.
Though that is a single area, and Comcast, AT&amp;T and other operate a bit differently, usually without any competition in a given area.
In the Prescott, AZ area, Cable One is generally far crappier than anything I can get in the city, they throttle you down more than even their TOS and help sites say.
You can't watch hulu or netflix for more than a couple hours without you being throttled to below a 400kbps stream can run on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324994</id>
	<title>Re:Same tired argument</title>
	<author>betterunixthanunix</author>
	<datestamp>1259948100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>"We aren't getting the advertised bandwidth! Waaah!"<br> <br>

Yes, actually, false advertising is a problem.  If an ISP tells me I can make unlimited use of my 10Mbps connection, I expect to be able to make unlimited use of it -- including sustaining 10Mbps or something reasonably close all day and all night.  If such a level of service is impossible for an ISP to provide and remain profitable, why the hell are they advertising these plans?<br> <br>

If they are lying to consumers about the level of service they can provide, they should cover themselves by increasing the network capacity, or they should admit they lied, reduce the bandwidth they provide to users, and hope that nobody sues them over it.  Kicking people off the network for trying to use what they paid for is not an appropriate response to overselling, and if the FCC had any spine they would kill the practice before it gets out of hand.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" We are n't getting the advertised bandwidth !
Waaah ! " Yes , actually , false advertising is a problem .
If an ISP tells me I can make unlimited use of my 10Mbps connection , I expect to be able to make unlimited use of it -- including sustaining 10Mbps or something reasonably close all day and all night .
If such a level of service is impossible for an ISP to provide and remain profitable , why the hell are they advertising these plans ?
If they are lying to consumers about the level of service they can provide , they should cover themselves by increasing the network capacity , or they should admit they lied , reduce the bandwidth they provide to users , and hope that nobody sues them over it .
Kicking people off the network for trying to use what they paid for is not an appropriate response to overselling , and if the FCC had any spine they would kill the practice before it gets out of hand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We aren't getting the advertised bandwidth!
Waaah!" 

Yes, actually, false advertising is a problem.
If an ISP tells me I can make unlimited use of my 10Mbps connection, I expect to be able to make unlimited use of it -- including sustaining 10Mbps or something reasonably close all day and all night.
If such a level of service is impossible for an ISP to provide and remain profitable, why the hell are they advertising these plans?
If they are lying to consumers about the level of service they can provide, they should cover themselves by increasing the network capacity, or they should admit they lied, reduce the bandwidth they provide to users, and hope that nobody sues them over it.
Kicking people off the network for trying to use what they paid for is not an appropriate response to overselling, and if the FCC had any spine they would kill the practice before it gets out of hand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30326084</id>
	<title>Re:Same tired argument</title>
	<author>Elshar</author>
	<datestamp>1259952720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're misreading the contract between you and the ISP. It's unlimited in that it's not metered. They're not going to charge you any more for downloading 20GB as 100GB. But, it's not unlimited in the Download at max speed 24/7 unlimited.</p><p>What you want is what's called a CIR/MIR (Committed Information Rate, or Minimum Information Rate). Those are usually offered with commercial connectivity contracts after some form of negotiation. Residential connections DO NOT usually have a CIR. Thus, they are cheap.</p><p>Go read your agreement you signed with your ISP if you don't believe me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're misreading the contract between you and the ISP .
It 's unlimited in that it 's not metered .
They 're not going to charge you any more for downloading 20GB as 100GB .
But , it 's not unlimited in the Download at max speed 24/7 unlimited.What you want is what 's called a CIR/MIR ( Committed Information Rate , or Minimum Information Rate ) .
Those are usually offered with commercial connectivity contracts after some form of negotiation .
Residential connections DO NOT usually have a CIR .
Thus , they are cheap.Go read your agreement you signed with your ISP if you do n't believe me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're misreading the contract between you and the ISP.
It's unlimited in that it's not metered.
They're not going to charge you any more for downloading 20GB as 100GB.
But, it's not unlimited in the Download at max speed 24/7 unlimited.What you want is what's called a CIR/MIR (Committed Information Rate, or Minimum Information Rate).
Those are usually offered with commercial connectivity contracts after some form of negotiation.
Residential connections DO NOT usually have a CIR.
Thus, they are cheap.Go read your agreement you signed with your ISP if you don't believe me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325748</id>
	<title>Re:Bandwidth can be hogged - I've seen it</title>
	<author>Shakrai</author>
	<datestamp>1259951220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If they could not support it then they should not be advertising a 5 Mb line.</p></div><p>So you think that an ISP should have to have a 1:1 contention ratio for <b>residential</b> users?  How can you make such a blanket statement anyway?  Even if your ISP has a 1:1 contention ratio they still aren't going to be able to promise you 5mbit/s at all times.  Events beyond their control (anybody remember how useless the internet was on 9/11?) will crop up from time to time and prevent you from achieving the promised speed.
</p><p><div class="quote"><p>So where are we allowed to be pushed around by the ISP?</p> </div><p>Because you signed the contract and agreed to be bound by it's terms in exchange for receiving their services?  If you don't like the terms then start your own ISP.  It's not the easiest thing to do in the world but you'll find it easier than starting your own car company or satellite TV provider.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they could not support it then they should not be advertising a 5 Mb line.So you think that an ISP should have to have a 1 : 1 contention ratio for residential users ?
How can you make such a blanket statement anyway ?
Even if your ISP has a 1 : 1 contention ratio they still are n't going to be able to promise you 5mbit/s at all times .
Events beyond their control ( anybody remember how useless the internet was on 9/11 ?
) will crop up from time to time and prevent you from achieving the promised speed .
So where are we allowed to be pushed around by the ISP ?
Because you signed the contract and agreed to be bound by it 's terms in exchange for receiving their services ?
If you do n't like the terms then start your own ISP .
It 's not the easiest thing to do in the world but you 'll find it easier than starting your own car company or satellite TV provider .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they could not support it then they should not be advertising a 5 Mb line.So you think that an ISP should have to have a 1:1 contention ratio for residential users?
How can you make such a blanket statement anyway?
Even if your ISP has a 1:1 contention ratio they still aren't going to be able to promise you 5mbit/s at all times.
Events beyond their control (anybody remember how useless the internet was on 9/11?
) will crop up from time to time and prevent you from achieving the promised speed.
So where are we allowed to be pushed around by the ISP?
Because you signed the contract and agreed to be bound by it's terms in exchange for receiving their services?
If you don't like the terms then start your own ISP.
It's not the easiest thing to do in the world but you'll find it easier than starting your own car company or satellite TV provider.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324880</id>
	<title>Charge us per GB</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1259947620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Charge for internet like electricity. You get charged for the power used, not the power available, and you get charged less during off-peak hours. If bandwidth hogs insist on running torrents during peak hours, they are just helping to pay for system upgrades. I don't trust the ISPs, so the government would have to enforce the rate of a basic connection (such as 256k with 20GB/month), and the government would have to enforce some amount of expenditure on system upgrades. In theory, the upgrades would allow the basic package to improve without much change in price.<br> <br>

The other option is to be annexed by Finland.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Charge for internet like electricity .
You get charged for the power used , not the power available , and you get charged less during off-peak hours .
If bandwidth hogs insist on running torrents during peak hours , they are just helping to pay for system upgrades .
I do n't trust the ISPs , so the government would have to enforce the rate of a basic connection ( such as 256k with 20GB/month ) , and the government would have to enforce some amount of expenditure on system upgrades .
In theory , the upgrades would allow the basic package to improve without much change in price .
The other option is to be annexed by Finland .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Charge for internet like electricity.
You get charged for the power used, not the power available, and you get charged less during off-peak hours.
If bandwidth hogs insist on running torrents during peak hours, they are just helping to pay for system upgrades.
I don't trust the ISPs, so the government would have to enforce the rate of a basic connection (such as 256k with 20GB/month), and the government would have to enforce some amount of expenditure on system upgrades.
In theory, the upgrades would allow the basic package to improve without much change in price.
The other option is to be annexed by Finland.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325214</id>
	<title>Re:No site has ever been slashdotted</title>
	<author>clare-ents</author>
	<datestamp>1259948940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When the upside-down-ternet was slashdotted it originally had more images in the page, but the 100Mbit upstream on the server filled up, so I took some out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When the upside-down-ternet was slashdotted it originally had more images in the page , but the 100Mbit upstream on the server filled up , so I took some out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the upside-down-ternet was slashdotted it originally had more images in the page, but the 100Mbit upstream on the server filled up, so I took some out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325664</id>
	<title>If I'm paying for a 15 mb connection</title>
	<author>TranscendentalAnarch</author>
	<datestamp>1259950860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>If I'm paying for a 15 mb connection, I should be able to use 15 mb of bandwidth 24/7 if I want to. If the ISP is going to limit bandwidth usage to a certain amount or throttle the connection during peak hours, the customer should be made aware of this before the purchase.</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I 'm paying for a 15 mb connection , I should be able to use 15 mb of bandwidth 24/7 if I want to .
If the ISP is going to limit bandwidth usage to a certain amount or throttle the connection during peak hours , the customer should be made aware of this before the purchase .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I'm paying for a 15 mb connection, I should be able to use 15 mb of bandwidth 24/7 if I want to.
If the ISP is going to limit bandwidth usage to a certain amount or throttle the connection during peak hours, the customer should be made aware of this before the purchase.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30329132</id>
	<title>Re:The "bandwidth hogs" aren't using TCP</title>
	<author>kyliaar</author>
	<datestamp>1259922240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This analysis of TCP is extremely flawed.</p><p>TCP doesn't limit the amount of data sent if there is packet loss.  This will only limit the amount of new data sent.  TCP will continue resending data that hasn't been acknowledged as being received.</p><p>When there is network connection, the server doesn't send you less data, it only appears you are receiving less data per unit of time due to the packet loss.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This analysis of TCP is extremely flawed.TCP does n't limit the amount of data sent if there is packet loss .
This will only limit the amount of new data sent .
TCP will continue resending data that has n't been acknowledged as being received.When there is network connection , the server does n't send you less data , it only appears you are receiving less data per unit of time due to the packet loss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This analysis of TCP is extremely flawed.TCP doesn't limit the amount of data sent if there is packet loss.
This will only limit the amount of new data sent.
TCP will continue resending data that hasn't been acknowledged as being received.When there is network connection, the server doesn't send you less data, it only appears you are receiving less data per unit of time due to the packet loss.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30327992</id>
	<title>Bad old days of Frame Relay</title>
	<author>Tisha\_AH</author>
	<datestamp>1259917320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In most cases, this is the fault of the companies who advertise "high speed" and leave open the implication that you can do anything you want with it. Put that in front of a geek and we will push those limits and come up with a dozen new ways to use that bandwidth up.</p><p>In a past incarnation I worked for a CLEC who had a large number of bank customers who used 64 Kbps DDS circuits for each automated teller machine. Everything went through a frame relay connection and those customers would constantly tinker with their Bc Be and CIR values for each frame circuit. We spent an inordinate amount of time each month tweaking each circuit to the new values that the customer wanted.</p><p>The big secret was that we did not penalize them for sustained bursts of traffic. Of course we told them that we would and that we would drop packets if they went beyond the duration of a burst. As long as the connections did not overwhelm our backhaul off of the data switches we never really cared too much. A few customers figured that out and if I had a moment of morbid curiosity I would peek in at their usage and see a high sustained data rate (usually a branch office and not an ATM and their IT folks would try to do backups across the frame relay network at night).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In most cases , this is the fault of the companies who advertise " high speed " and leave open the implication that you can do anything you want with it .
Put that in front of a geek and we will push those limits and come up with a dozen new ways to use that bandwidth up.In a past incarnation I worked for a CLEC who had a large number of bank customers who used 64 Kbps DDS circuits for each automated teller machine .
Everything went through a frame relay connection and those customers would constantly tinker with their Bc Be and CIR values for each frame circuit .
We spent an inordinate amount of time each month tweaking each circuit to the new values that the customer wanted.The big secret was that we did not penalize them for sustained bursts of traffic .
Of course we told them that we would and that we would drop packets if they went beyond the duration of a burst .
As long as the connections did not overwhelm our backhaul off of the data switches we never really cared too much .
A few customers figured that out and if I had a moment of morbid curiosity I would peek in at their usage and see a high sustained data rate ( usually a branch office and not an ATM and their IT folks would try to do backups across the frame relay network at night ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In most cases, this is the fault of the companies who advertise "high speed" and leave open the implication that you can do anything you want with it.
Put that in front of a geek and we will push those limits and come up with a dozen new ways to use that bandwidth up.In a past incarnation I worked for a CLEC who had a large number of bank customers who used 64 Kbps DDS circuits for each automated teller machine.
Everything went through a frame relay connection and those customers would constantly tinker with their Bc Be and CIR values for each frame circuit.
We spent an inordinate amount of time each month tweaking each circuit to the new values that the customer wanted.The big secret was that we did not penalize them for sustained bursts of traffic.
Of course we told them that we would and that we would drop packets if they went beyond the duration of a burst.
As long as the connections did not overwhelm our backhaul off of the data switches we never really cared too much.
A few customers figured that out and if I had a moment of morbid curiosity I would peek in at their usage and see a high sustained data rate (usually a branch office and not an ATM and their IT folks would try to do backups across the frame relay network at night).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325336</id>
	<title>Re:I do it too</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1259949360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I also go through my client list and drop those that consume more of my time and resources in favour of the easier clients who ultimately improve my business at a lesser cost.  What's wrong with that?  My company, my rules.  "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"  --  it's in every restaurant.  Why would you expect a business to serve you?  Why would you consider it a right?</p></div><p>Let's say you sell widgets.</p><p>You have 5 people come to you, each one wants to buy 1 widget.  And another guy shows up and wants to buy 5 widgets.</p><p>You only have 5 widgets in stock, you need 10, but you really want their money.  So you sell each of those people a coupon for their widgets, and tell them to pick it up at your warehouse.  You figure they won't all run over there right now, and you'll probably have time to get a couple more widgets in stock before anybody notices.</p><p>Of course you don't tell your customers this.  You don't tell them "<i>I only have 5 right now, you'll have to wait 'til the next shipment</i>"  You just take their money and leave them with the impression that the widget is there, waiting for them, available for pickup whenever they want.</p><p>So all of them show up at the warehouse about 5 minutes later.  All of them want their widgets <b>now</b>.  But you don't have enough widgets to go around.  So you call the guy who bought 5 widgets a "widget hog", cancel his order, and throw up a hastily-made sign that says "limit 1 per customer."</p><p>Legal?  Yeah, I guess...  Assuming you refund his money.</p><p>Right?  Not so much.  You should have clearly explained that you only have 5 widgets in stock, or that the coupon couldn't be redeemed for a week, or that there was a limit of 1 per customer, or something.  You mis-represented what you were selling to your customers.</p><p>Likely to leave a good impression on your customers?  Nope.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I also go through my client list and drop those that consume more of my time and resources in favour of the easier clients who ultimately improve my business at a lesser cost .
What 's wrong with that ?
My company , my rules .
" We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone " -- it 's in every restaurant .
Why would you expect a business to serve you ?
Why would you consider it a right ? Let 's say you sell widgets.You have 5 people come to you , each one wants to buy 1 widget .
And another guy shows up and wants to buy 5 widgets.You only have 5 widgets in stock , you need 10 , but you really want their money .
So you sell each of those people a coupon for their widgets , and tell them to pick it up at your warehouse .
You figure they wo n't all run over there right now , and you 'll probably have time to get a couple more widgets in stock before anybody notices.Of course you do n't tell your customers this .
You do n't tell them " I only have 5 right now , you 'll have to wait 'til the next shipment " You just take their money and leave them with the impression that the widget is there , waiting for them , available for pickup whenever they want.So all of them show up at the warehouse about 5 minutes later .
All of them want their widgets now .
But you do n't have enough widgets to go around .
So you call the guy who bought 5 widgets a " widget hog " , cancel his order , and throw up a hastily-made sign that says " limit 1 per customer. " Legal ?
Yeah , I guess... Assuming you refund his money.Right ?
Not so much .
You should have clearly explained that you only have 5 widgets in stock , or that the coupon could n't be redeemed for a week , or that there was a limit of 1 per customer , or something .
You mis-represented what you were selling to your customers.Likely to leave a good impression on your customers ?
Nope .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also go through my client list and drop those that consume more of my time and resources in favour of the easier clients who ultimately improve my business at a lesser cost.
What's wrong with that?
My company, my rules.
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"  --  it's in every restaurant.
Why would you expect a business to serve you?
Why would you consider it a right?Let's say you sell widgets.You have 5 people come to you, each one wants to buy 1 widget.
And another guy shows up and wants to buy 5 widgets.You only have 5 widgets in stock, you need 10, but you really want their money.
So you sell each of those people a coupon for their widgets, and tell them to pick it up at your warehouse.
You figure they won't all run over there right now, and you'll probably have time to get a couple more widgets in stock before anybody notices.Of course you don't tell your customers this.
You don't tell them "I only have 5 right now, you'll have to wait 'til the next shipment"  You just take their money and leave them with the impression that the widget is there, waiting for them, available for pickup whenever they want.So all of them show up at the warehouse about 5 minutes later.
All of them want their widgets now.
But you don't have enough widgets to go around.
So you call the guy who bought 5 widgets a "widget hog", cancel his order, and throw up a hastily-made sign that says "limit 1 per customer."Legal?
Yeah, I guess...  Assuming you refund his money.Right?
Not so much.
You should have clearly explained that you only have 5 widgets in stock, or that the coupon couldn't be redeemed for a week, or that there was a limit of 1 per customer, or something.
You mis-represented what you were selling to your customers.Likely to leave a good impression on your customers?
Nope.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30328124</id>
	<title>Re:I do it too</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1259918040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bad analogy. If your restaraunt advertises "all you can eat" they'd damned well better not stop me after the fourth plate. Your company, your rules, but once you write those rules you'd better follow them yourself, or you're going to be getting correspondance from lawyers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bad analogy .
If your restaraunt advertises " all you can eat " they 'd damned well better not stop me after the fourth plate .
Your company , your rules , but once you write those rules you 'd better follow them yourself , or you 're going to be getting correspondance from lawyers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bad analogy.
If your restaraunt advertises "all you can eat" they'd damned well better not stop me after the fourth plate.
Your company, your rules, but once you write those rules you'd better follow them yourself, or you're going to be getting correspondance from lawyers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30328170</id>
	<title>Re:I do it too</title>
	<author>KraftDinner</author>
	<datestamp>1259918220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whats your company's name so I can never buy your service.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whats your company 's name so I can never buy your service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whats your company's name so I can never buy your service.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325408</id>
	<title>Re:Same tired argument</title>
	<author>Gerafix</author>
	<datestamp>1259949660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The FCC has a spine although it's been bought by corporations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The FCC has a spine although it 's been bought by corporations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FCC has a spine although it's been bought by corporations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325690</id>
	<title>Re:Same tired argument</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259950980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Kicking people off the network for trying to use what they paid for is not an appropriate response to overselling, and if the FCC had any spine they would kill the practice before it gets out of hand.</p></div><p>Before it gets out of hand? There is a problem with this.<br>K0 particles can be split in to 2 or 3 pions, however you can combine 2 and not 3 pions to make a K0 particle. Based on this I refuse to believe the FCC has a working time machine.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kicking people off the network for trying to use what they paid for is not an appropriate response to overselling , and if the FCC had any spine they would kill the practice before it gets out of hand.Before it gets out of hand ?
There is a problem with this.K0 particles can be split in to 2 or 3 pions , however you can combine 2 and not 3 pions to make a K0 particle .
Based on this I refuse to believe the FCC has a working time machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Kicking people off the network for trying to use what they paid for is not an appropriate response to overselling, and if the FCC had any spine they would kill the practice before it gets out of hand.Before it gets out of hand?
There is a problem with this.K0 particles can be split in to 2 or 3 pions, however you can combine 2 and not 3 pions to make a K0 particle.
Based on this I refuse to believe the FCC has a working time machine.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324352</id>
	<title>Interesting headline.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259945400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/bandwidth-hogs-dont-even-exist-says-analyst.ars" title="arstechnica.com" rel="nofollow">I wonder where you got it from.</a> [arstechnica.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder where you got it from .
[ arstechnica.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder where you got it from.
[arstechnica.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325098</id>
	<title>Re:I do it too</title>
	<author>Colonel Korn</author>
	<datestamp>1259948520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I also go through my client list and drop those that consume more of my time and resources in favour of the easier clients who ultimately improve my business at a lesser cost.  What's wrong with that?  My company, my rules.  "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"  --  it's in every restaurant.  Why would you expect a business to serve you?  Why would you consider it a right?</p></div><p>Your company's service isn't based on federal subsidies meant to provide internet access to all citizens.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I also go through my client list and drop those that consume more of my time and resources in favour of the easier clients who ultimately improve my business at a lesser cost .
What 's wrong with that ?
My company , my rules .
" We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone " -- it 's in every restaurant .
Why would you expect a business to serve you ?
Why would you consider it a right ? Your company 's service is n't based on federal subsidies meant to provide internet access to all citizens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also go through my client list and drop those that consume more of my time and resources in favour of the easier clients who ultimately improve my business at a lesser cost.
What's wrong with that?
My company, my rules.
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"  --  it's in every restaurant.
Why would you expect a business to serve you?
Why would you consider it a right?Your company's service isn't based on federal subsidies meant to provide internet access to all citizens.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324398</id>
	<title>Interesting</title>
	<author>Drasham</author>
	<datestamp>1259945580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd love to see the result of such a data analysis.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd love to see the result of such a data analysis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd love to see the result of such a data analysis.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325106</id>
	<title>Re:Bandwidth can be hogged - I've seen it</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1259948520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's just bad configuration, not bandwidth hogging.  Prioritize ACK packets and you can run torrents all day without affecting other uses of the network.</p><p><i>One user can bottleneck the pipes, but since their stuff isn't fast any more either, we're all good?</i></p><p>If the "bandwidth hog" isn't fast anymore, he's no longer a hog.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's just bad configuration , not bandwidth hogging .
Prioritize ACK packets and you can run torrents all day without affecting other uses of the network.One user can bottleneck the pipes , but since their stuff is n't fast any more either , we 're all good ? If the " bandwidth hog " is n't fast anymore , he 's no longer a hog .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's just bad configuration, not bandwidth hogging.
Prioritize ACK packets and you can run torrents all day without affecting other uses of the network.One user can bottleneck the pipes, but since their stuff isn't fast any more either, we're all good?If the "bandwidth hog" isn't fast anymore, he's no longer a hog.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324966</id>
	<title>Re:Bandwidth can be hogged - I've seen it</title>
	<author>noname101</author>
	<datestamp>1259947980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are comparing the results of a sub set of the network and not as a whole.  Person B that was running the torrents was using all of the bandwidth of the given connection.  So person A could not connect.  That is fine that is what you have accepted as use with your telco, So much down and so much up.  The issues that you missed is that it did not effect your neighbor next door or down the street or next town over because they have their own internet connection.
<br> <br>
If the ISP sold me a 5 Mb line that it is mine to do with as a please.  If they could not support it then they should not be advertising a 5 Mb line.  Which on a side note I have a 5 Mb line and I have never seen over 3Mb even on their "optimized" internal network.  So what the telco's are really afraid is going to happen is that people are going to find out that there is no way for them to support the line speed they are promising.
<br> <br>
Can Ford tell me where I can drive my car?  Does Dish tell me I have to watch a certain channel?  Does Sony stop me from buying a Toshiba DVD player?  Does the pone company tell me who I can and cannot call?  So where are we allowed to be pushed around by the ISP?
<br> <br>
<br>
---------------<br>
Signature would go here if I was clever.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are comparing the results of a sub set of the network and not as a whole .
Person B that was running the torrents was using all of the bandwidth of the given connection .
So person A could not connect .
That is fine that is what you have accepted as use with your telco , So much down and so much up .
The issues that you missed is that it did not effect your neighbor next door or down the street or next town over because they have their own internet connection .
If the ISP sold me a 5 Mb line that it is mine to do with as a please .
If they could not support it then they should not be advertising a 5 Mb line .
Which on a side note I have a 5 Mb line and I have never seen over 3Mb even on their " optimized " internal network .
So what the telco 's are really afraid is going to happen is that people are going to find out that there is no way for them to support the line speed they are promising .
Can Ford tell me where I can drive my car ?
Does Dish tell me I have to watch a certain channel ?
Does Sony stop me from buying a Toshiba DVD player ?
Does the pone company tell me who I can and can not call ?
So where are we allowed to be pushed around by the ISP ?
--------------- Signature would go here if I was clever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are comparing the results of a sub set of the network and not as a whole.
Person B that was running the torrents was using all of the bandwidth of the given connection.
So person A could not connect.
That is fine that is what you have accepted as use with your telco, So much down and so much up.
The issues that you missed is that it did not effect your neighbor next door or down the street or next town over because they have their own internet connection.
If the ISP sold me a 5 Mb line that it is mine to do with as a please.
If they could not support it then they should not be advertising a 5 Mb line.
Which on a side note I have a 5 Mb line and I have never seen over 3Mb even on their "optimized" internal network.
So what the telco's are really afraid is going to happen is that people are going to find out that there is no way for them to support the line speed they are promising.
Can Ford tell me where I can drive my car?
Does Dish tell me I have to watch a certain channel?
Does Sony stop me from buying a Toshiba DVD player?
Does the pone company tell me who I can and cannot call?
So where are we allowed to be pushed around by the ISP?
---------------
Signature would go here if I was clever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30327762</id>
	<title>Re:No site has ever been slashdotted</title>
	<author>Fulcrum of Evil</author>
	<datestamp>1259959560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes, I miss Token-Ring. Don't hate the player, hate the game.</p></div><p>I don't. plug a 4mb token ring card into a 16mb network and the token falls out, errm, the network falls over. The solution? unplug computers in turn until the network comes back. Contrast it with ethernet (and its $20 cards that don't stay warm when the computer's off), where your port just doesn't work. Also, you have to get over 70\% on an unswitched ethernet net to see problems - with switches, it just doesn't matter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , I miss Token-Ring .
Do n't hate the player , hate the game.I do n't .
plug a 4mb token ring card into a 16mb network and the token falls out , errm , the network falls over .
The solution ?
unplug computers in turn until the network comes back .
Contrast it with ethernet ( and its $ 20 cards that do n't stay warm when the computer 's off ) , where your port just does n't work .
Also , you have to get over 70 \ % on an unswitched ethernet net to see problems - with switches , it just does n't matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, I miss Token-Ring.
Don't hate the player, hate the game.I don't.
plug a 4mb token ring card into a 16mb network and the token falls out, errm, the network falls over.
The solution?
unplug computers in turn until the network comes back.
Contrast it with ethernet (and its $20 cards that don't stay warm when the computer's off), where your port just doesn't work.
Also, you have to get over 70\% on an unswitched ethernet net to see problems - with switches, it just doesn't matter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324774</id>
	<title>Re:Bandwidth can be hogged - I've seen it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259947140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the difference may be that a bandwidth hog of a single connection is a user that can use near 100\% of the bandwidth.

With ISPs on the other hand, the average use by a single user is probably only around 10-25\% of daily bandwidth or less (uneducated guess).  That means if 5\% of the users are using 100\% of the bandwidth continually, than everything is fine as long as the ISP can supply at least ~30\% of the user bandwidth x the number of users.

I could be completely off base however...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the difference may be that a bandwidth hog of a single connection is a user that can use near 100 \ % of the bandwidth .
With ISPs on the other hand , the average use by a single user is probably only around 10-25 \ % of daily bandwidth or less ( uneducated guess ) .
That means if 5 \ % of the users are using 100 \ % of the bandwidth continually , than everything is fine as long as the ISP can supply at least ~ 30 \ % of the user bandwidth x the number of users .
I could be completely off base however.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the difference may be that a bandwidth hog of a single connection is a user that can use near 100\% of the bandwidth.
With ISPs on the other hand, the average use by a single user is probably only around 10-25\% of daily bandwidth or less (uneducated guess).
That means if 5\% of the users are using 100\% of the bandwidth continually, than everything is fine as long as the ISP can supply at least ~30\% of the user bandwidth x the number of users.
I could be completely off base however...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30326014</id>
	<title>They sell TV service over the same wire anyway</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259952420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Qwest wanted me to pay extra for their broken (won't work with my PVR) TV service.  I declined.  But their hand is tipped: they're happy with the idea of people using the wire for high-bandwidth multimedia.  So yeah, by the ISPs' own standards, there is no such thing as a bandwidth "hog."  You can stream all day at full blast, and as long as you pay extra to get it from their own (subcontracted) server, it's business as usual.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Qwest wanted me to pay extra for their broken ( wo n't work with my PVR ) TV service .
I declined .
But their hand is tipped : they 're happy with the idea of people using the wire for high-bandwidth multimedia .
So yeah , by the ISPs ' own standards , there is no such thing as a bandwidth " hog .
" You can stream all day at full blast , and as long as you pay extra to get it from their own ( subcontracted ) server , it 's business as usual .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Qwest wanted me to pay extra for their broken (won't work with my PVR) TV service.
I declined.
But their hand is tipped: they're happy with the idea of people using the wire for high-bandwidth multimedia.
So yeah, by the ISPs' own standards, there is no such thing as a bandwidth "hog.
"  You can stream all day at full blast, and as long as you pay extra to get it from their own (subcontracted) server, it's business as usual.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30326670</id>
	<title>Re:Bandwidth can be hogged - I've seen it</title>
	<author>Wiechman</author>
	<datestamp>1259954820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a horrible comparison for many reasons. However, running with your analogy, if you go to a sale that says up to 50\% off. You see a sweater you want marked as "50\% off" and pay for it before going to grab it. Then as you go to grab it, you are told that you can not have the entire sweater because too many people have bought it.

Now I guess a fairer comparison would be a sale sign saying, up to an entire sweater for full price, and they hand you part of a sleeve.

I think the article is talking about something even worse. It is saying that you go to grab your paid-for sweater from a warehouse full of sweaters, and no other buyers in sight, and you are told are told that you can no longer buy from them because you are purchasing and expecting to use too much of that sweater at the detriment of other sweater purchasers in a time of a sweater scarcity.

It is disingenuous and possibly deceptive business practices.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a horrible comparison for many reasons .
However , running with your analogy , if you go to a sale that says up to 50 \ % off .
You see a sweater you want marked as " 50 \ % off " and pay for it before going to grab it .
Then as you go to grab it , you are told that you can not have the entire sweater because too many people have bought it .
Now I guess a fairer comparison would be a sale sign saying , up to an entire sweater for full price , and they hand you part of a sleeve .
I think the article is talking about something even worse .
It is saying that you go to grab your paid-for sweater from a warehouse full of sweaters , and no other buyers in sight , and you are told are told that you can no longer buy from them because you are purchasing and expecting to use too much of that sweater at the detriment of other sweater purchasers in a time of a sweater scarcity .
It is disingenuous and possibly deceptive business practices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a horrible comparison for many reasons.
However, running with your analogy, if you go to a sale that says up to 50\% off.
You see a sweater you want marked as "50\% off" and pay for it before going to grab it.
Then as you go to grab it, you are told that you can not have the entire sweater because too many people have bought it.
Now I guess a fairer comparison would be a sale sign saying, up to an entire sweater for full price, and they hand you part of a sleeve.
I think the article is talking about something even worse.
It is saying that you go to grab your paid-for sweater from a warehouse full of sweaters, and no other buyers in sight, and you are told are told that you can no longer buy from them because you are purchasing and expecting to use too much of that sweater at the detriment of other sweater purchasers in a time of a sweater scarcity.
It is disingenuous and possibly deceptive business practices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30337010</id>
	<title>Re:I do it too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260042300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>&lt;quote&gt;My company, my rules. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"&lt;/quote&gt;<br><br>I bet you say that to all the blacks that want to do business with your company, dont you?</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My company , my rules .
" We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone " I bet you say that to all the blacks that want to do business with your company , dont you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My company, my rules.
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"I bet you say that to all the blacks that want to do business with your company, dont you?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325212</id>
	<title>Bandwidth Hog</title>
	<author>Aladrin</author>
	<datestamp>1259948940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First of all, I am, and always will be, a bandwidth hog.  Why?  Because I'm better at using the internet than everyone around me.  That means I find more things, and bigger things, to download.  If they someone banned P2P, I'd still have more streamed video than anyone I know.  If they banned that, too, I'd still download more images.  If they banned that, i'd still have more web traffic, email, IM, etc etc etc.  I will always be a 'hog' in any environment.  I was even told that I was "#1 abuser" of the "Unlimited" service when I was on dial-up in a small town and they tried to charge me an extra $300 that month.  As someone else had just come into town, I switched, obviously.</p><p>I don't pay for the top tier of residential service to just let it sit idle.  I'm going to -use- it.</p><p>I have absolutely no sympathy for people that sell me something and then get upset when I actually use it within the original limitations.  I have only a small amount of sympathy for people that sell me something and I use it beyond their arbitrary limitations, even if I agreed to them.</p><p>Why?</p><p>America has -crap- for internet compared to other developed countries.  We are quickly falling behind the rest of the world in terms of internet bandwidth.  This is purely from greed and laziness on the part of the ISP.  They refuse to upgrade and try to prevent competition at the same time.  Sprint even has the nerve to advertise Pure and claim that it's faster than Cable internet, despite being 1/10th of the speed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , I am , and always will be , a bandwidth hog .
Why ? Because I 'm better at using the internet than everyone around me .
That means I find more things , and bigger things , to download .
If they someone banned P2P , I 'd still have more streamed video than anyone I know .
If they banned that , too , I 'd still download more images .
If they banned that , i 'd still have more web traffic , email , IM , etc etc etc .
I will always be a 'hog ' in any environment .
I was even told that I was " # 1 abuser " of the " Unlimited " service when I was on dial-up in a small town and they tried to charge me an extra $ 300 that month .
As someone else had just come into town , I switched , obviously.I do n't pay for the top tier of residential service to just let it sit idle .
I 'm going to -use- it.I have absolutely no sympathy for people that sell me something and then get upset when I actually use it within the original limitations .
I have only a small amount of sympathy for people that sell me something and I use it beyond their arbitrary limitations , even if I agreed to them.Why ? America has -crap- for internet compared to other developed countries .
We are quickly falling behind the rest of the world in terms of internet bandwidth .
This is purely from greed and laziness on the part of the ISP .
They refuse to upgrade and try to prevent competition at the same time .
Sprint even has the nerve to advertise Pure and claim that it 's faster than Cable internet , despite being 1/10th of the speed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, I am, and always will be, a bandwidth hog.
Why?  Because I'm better at using the internet than everyone around me.
That means I find more things, and bigger things, to download.
If they someone banned P2P, I'd still have more streamed video than anyone I know.
If they banned that, too, I'd still download more images.
If they banned that, i'd still have more web traffic, email, IM, etc etc etc.
I will always be a 'hog' in any environment.
I was even told that I was "#1 abuser" of the "Unlimited" service when I was on dial-up in a small town and they tried to charge me an extra $300 that month.
As someone else had just come into town, I switched, obviously.I don't pay for the top tier of residential service to just let it sit idle.
I'm going to -use- it.I have absolutely no sympathy for people that sell me something and then get upset when I actually use it within the original limitations.
I have only a small amount of sympathy for people that sell me something and I use it beyond their arbitrary limitations, even if I agreed to them.Why?America has -crap- for internet compared to other developed countries.
We are quickly falling behind the rest of the world in terms of internet bandwidth.
This is purely from greed and laziness on the part of the ISP.
They refuse to upgrade and try to prevent competition at the same time.
Sprint even has the nerve to advertise Pure and claim that it's faster than Cable internet, despite being 1/10th of the speed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324658</id>
	<title>Re:No site has ever been slashdotted</title>
	<author>Qzukk</author>
	<datestamp>1259946660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You think you're being sarcastic, but has anyone ever seen a network go down in flames due to slashdotting, or has it always been the server?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You think you 're being sarcastic , but has anyone ever seen a network go down in flames due to slashdotting , or has it always been the server ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You think you're being sarcastic, but has anyone ever seen a network go down in flames due to slashdotting, or has it always been the server?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30326474</id>
	<title>Re:Bandwidth can be hogged - I've seen it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259954280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We had this problem in our house, and it did come down to the router. Commodity routers have only a limited amount of memory for the NAT tables, and when you have more connections than the router can handle, it starts dropping entries, and thus connections, from the table. The only solution is to configure your P2P programs to lower the maximum number of connections and half-open connections, since you won't be able to find a cheap router without this limitation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We had this problem in our house , and it did come down to the router .
Commodity routers have only a limited amount of memory for the NAT tables , and when you have more connections than the router can handle , it starts dropping entries , and thus connections , from the table .
The only solution is to configure your P2P programs to lower the maximum number of connections and half-open connections , since you wo n't be able to find a cheap router without this limitation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We had this problem in our house, and it did come down to the router.
Commodity routers have only a limited amount of memory for the NAT tables, and when you have more connections than the router can handle, it starts dropping entries, and thus connections, from the table.
The only solution is to configure your P2P programs to lower the maximum number of connections and half-open connections, since you won't be able to find a cheap router without this limitation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30326404</id>
	<title>Why charge per GB xferred won't work</title>
	<author>GuyFawkes</author>
	<datestamp>1259954040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It won't work because for 90\% of internet users their monthly bill will go DOWN, a LOT.</p><p>I use an old Samsung pre-pay mobile, my average monthly cost is less than 2 dollars.</p><p>Which is why telco's LOVE stuff like line rental, monthly plans, etc etc etc.</p><p>The whole cost of bandwidth thing is just arbitrary bullshit, the actual physical cost of running a given pipe at 0\% capacity, and the same pipe at 100\% capacity, is measured in cents worth of electricity per hour.</p><p>It is artificial scarcity, no more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It wo n't work because for 90 \ % of internet users their monthly bill will go DOWN , a LOT.I use an old Samsung pre-pay mobile , my average monthly cost is less than 2 dollars.Which is why telco 's LOVE stuff like line rental , monthly plans , etc etc etc.The whole cost of bandwidth thing is just arbitrary bullshit , the actual physical cost of running a given pipe at 0 \ % capacity , and the same pipe at 100 \ % capacity , is measured in cents worth of electricity per hour.It is artificial scarcity , no more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It won't work because for 90\% of internet users their monthly bill will go DOWN, a LOT.I use an old Samsung pre-pay mobile, my average monthly cost is less than 2 dollars.Which is why telco's LOVE stuff like line rental, monthly plans, etc etc etc.The whole cost of bandwidth thing is just arbitrary bullshit, the actual physical cost of running a given pipe at 0\% capacity, and the same pipe at 100\% capacity, is measured in cents worth of electricity per hour.It is artificial scarcity, no more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30326950</id>
	<title>Re:Bandwidth can be hogged - I've seen it</title>
	<author>temojen</author>
	<datestamp>1259956020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shaw cable, in BC, Canada now sells "High speed" with"Powerboost" which means your connections are throttled after the first few seconds of connecting. It seems a good way to do it; people just surfing have a good experience, but torrenters still have fairly high (but not as high) speed access. Sadly, they market it as medium speed with boosting, not throttled high speed which it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shaw cable , in BC , Canada now sells " High speed " with " Powerboost " which means your connections are throttled after the first few seconds of connecting .
It seems a good way to do it ; people just surfing have a good experience , but torrenters still have fairly high ( but not as high ) speed access .
Sadly , they market it as medium speed with boosting , not throttled high speed which it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shaw cable, in BC, Canada now sells "High speed" with"Powerboost" which means your connections are throttled after the first few seconds of connecting.
It seems a good way to do it; people just surfing have a good experience, but torrenters still have fairly high (but not as high) speed access.
Sadly, they market it as medium speed with boosting, not throttled high speed which it is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324478</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting headline.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259945940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>lol, you give us AC's a bad name.</htmltext>
<tokenext>lol , you give us AC 's a bad name .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lol, you give us AC's a bad name.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324910</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259947800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's obviously never met any of my previous roommates. The bandwidth hog(s) is/are alive and well.</p><p>-Dras</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's obviously never met any of my previous roommates .
The bandwidth hog ( s ) is/are alive and well.-Dras</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's obviously never met any of my previous roommates.
The bandwidth hog(s) is/are alive and well.-Dras</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325518</id>
	<title>I'm a fraid to be the Bandwidth Hog</title>
	<author>u64</author>
	<datestamp>1259950140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's why i choose the cheapest internet money can buy 250kbps/128kbps ~9&euro;/month<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D<br>I keep DC++ up around the clock on a silent 256 RAM 350MHz. I get on average<br>a movie per day, that's more then plenty for me.<br>Even Youtube often works \_while\_ p2p does two full uploads!</p><p>[HKEY\_LOCAL\_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\parameters]<br>"Tcp1323Opts"=dword:1<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;unlock larger TcpWindowSize And no Timestamp save 12 Byte every packet<br>"TcpAckFrequency"=dword:9<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;smoother traffic. 'd' also works, but perhaps high latency<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;connections suffer if there's too long wait between ACKs...<br>"TcpDelAckTicks"=dword:6<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;1-6 = 100-600ms Def=200<br>"SackOpts"=dword:0<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;no extra packet overhead<br>"KeepAliveInterval"=dword:fff<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;=4095 Def=1000(ms) between keepalives when no response is received<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;Linux def=75000 (may have changed nowadays?)<br>"TcpMaxDataRetransmissions"=dword:4<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;XPDef=5 requests for data. LinuxDef=9</p><p>Carefully add one at a time and measure overall performance over time. Check if it<br>makes things better or worse or has no effect. I've been using these with no noticable<br>problems over several years.</p><p>Oh, and the 350MHz PC is also a DNS server, helps cut more traffic.<br>(i tweaked W2003 until it ran fine on 256 RAM)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why i choose the cheapest internet money can buy 250kbps/128kbps ~ 9    /month : DI keep DC + + up around the clock on a silent 256 RAM 350MHz .
I get on averagea movie per day , that 's more then plenty for me.Even Youtube often works \ _while \ _ p2p does two full uploads !
[ HKEY \ _LOCAL \ _MACHINE \ System \ CurrentControlSet \ Services \ Tcpip \ parameters ] " Tcp1323Opts " = dword : 1 ; unlock larger TcpWindowSize And no Timestamp save 12 Byte every packet " TcpAckFrequency " = dword : 9 ; smoother traffic .
'd ' also works , but perhaps high latency ; connections suffer if there 's too long wait between ACKs... " TcpDelAckTicks " = dword : 6 ; 1-6 = 100-600ms Def = 200 " SackOpts " = dword : 0 ; no extra packet overhead " KeepAliveInterval " = dword : fff ; = 4095 Def = 1000 ( ms ) between keepalives when no response is received ; Linux def = 75000 ( may have changed nowadays ?
) " TcpMaxDataRetransmissions " = dword : 4 ; XPDef = 5 requests for data .
LinuxDef = 9Carefully add one at a time and measure overall performance over time .
Check if itmakes things better or worse or has no effect .
I 've been using these with no noticableproblems over several years.Oh , and the 350MHz PC is also a DNS server , helps cut more traffic .
( i tweaked W2003 until it ran fine on 256 RAM )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why i choose the cheapest internet money can buy 250kbps/128kbps ~9€/month :DI keep DC++ up around the clock on a silent 256 RAM 350MHz.
I get on averagea movie per day, that's more then plenty for me.Even Youtube often works \_while\_ p2p does two full uploads!
[HKEY\_LOCAL\_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\parameters]"Tcp1323Opts"=dword:1 ;unlock larger TcpWindowSize And no Timestamp save 12 Byte every packet"TcpAckFrequency"=dword:9 ;smoother traffic.
'd' also works, but perhaps high latency ;connections suffer if there's too long wait between ACKs..."TcpDelAckTicks"=dword:6 ;1-6 = 100-600ms Def=200"SackOpts"=dword:0 ;no extra packet overhead"KeepAliveInterval"=dword:fff ;=4095 Def=1000(ms) between keepalives when no response is received ;Linux def=75000 (may have changed nowadays?
)"TcpMaxDataRetransmissions"=dword:4 ;XPDef=5 requests for data.
LinuxDef=9Carefully add one at a time and measure overall performance over time.
Check if itmakes things better or worse or has no effect.
I've been using these with no noticableproblems over several years.Oh, and the 350MHz PC is also a DNS server, helps cut more traffic.
(i tweaked W2003 until it ran fine on 256 RAM)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324978</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1259948040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Because the operators pay for the bandwidth. The high bandwidth users are less profitable than the other ones.</i></p><p>That is why tiered services would solve the problem. High bandwidth users should be more profitable than other ones. Then the ISPs would be profit motivated to encourage heavy bandwidth usage, and the users would be cost motivated to be efficient with their usage.</p><p>No single thing is more at the root of this problem than the word "unlimited."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the operators pay for the bandwidth .
The high bandwidth users are less profitable than the other ones.That is why tiered services would solve the problem .
High bandwidth users should be more profitable than other ones .
Then the ISPs would be profit motivated to encourage heavy bandwidth usage , and the users would be cost motivated to be efficient with their usage.No single thing is more at the root of this problem than the word " unlimited .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the operators pay for the bandwidth.
The high bandwidth users are less profitable than the other ones.That is why tiered services would solve the problem.
High bandwidth users should be more profitable than other ones.
Then the ISPs would be profit motivated to encourage heavy bandwidth usage, and the users would be cost motivated to be efficient with their usage.No single thing is more at the root of this problem than the word "unlimited.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324468</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>godrik</author>
	<datestamp>1259945940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because the operators pay for the bandwidth. The high bandwidth users are less profitable than the other ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the operators pay for the bandwidth .
The high bandwidth users are less profitable than the other ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the operators pay for the bandwidth.
The high bandwidth users are less profitable than the other ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30326844</id>
	<title>Re:Bandwidth can be hogged - I've seen it</title>
	<author>bws111</author>
	<datestamp>1259955600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>A more accurate way to put it is this:  the telcos want you to pay for a 1Mbps line, but let you run it at 70Mbps if resources are available.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A more accurate way to put it is this : the telcos want you to pay for a 1Mbps line , but let you run it at 70Mbps if resources are available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A more accurate way to put it is this:  the telcos want you to pay for a 1Mbps line, but let you run it at 70Mbps if resources are available.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324990</id>
	<title>Ut Oh</title>
	<author>bittles</author>
	<datestamp>1259948100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shit! they're on to me! 200+ torrents in transmission, nooooo I'm not a bandwidth hog.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Shit !
they 're on to me !
200 + torrents in transmission , nooooo I 'm not a bandwidth hog .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shit!
they're on to me!
200+ torrents in transmission, nooooo I'm not a bandwidth hog.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324480</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259945940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They don't negatively impact operations in the sense of taking up a scarce resource that degrades other customers' performance. However, they do still use above-average amounts of bandwidth, which costs ISPs money. When offering a flat-rate, unlimited-use service, your economics come out ahead if you can find some way to skew your customers towards those who don't actually take advantage of your claimed "unlimited use".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't negatively impact operations in the sense of taking up a scarce resource that degrades other customers ' performance .
However , they do still use above-average amounts of bandwidth , which costs ISPs money .
When offering a flat-rate , unlimited-use service , your economics come out ahead if you can find some way to skew your customers towards those who do n't actually take advantage of your claimed " unlimited use " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't negatively impact operations in the sense of taking up a scarce resource that degrades other customers' performance.
However, they do still use above-average amounts of bandwidth, which costs ISPs money.
When offering a flat-rate, unlimited-use service, your economics come out ahead if you can find some way to skew your customers towards those who don't actually take advantage of your claimed "unlimited use".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30326386</id>
	<title>Hunting the mythical bandwidth hog?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259953980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SELECT user\_id FROM usage ORDER BY bytes\_out DESC</p><p>or is that assuming too much?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SELECT user \ _id FROM usage ORDER BY bytes \ _out DESCor is that assuming too much ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SELECT user\_id FROM usage ORDER BY bytes\_out DESCor is that assuming too much?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30334118</id>
	<title>Re:I do it too</title>
	<author>sydneyfong</author>
	<datestamp>1260016680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless your coupon has a bunch of legalese covering your ass (and the buyer knows about it when he paid the price of the widget), it's probably not "legal".</p><p>In most cases it doesn't matter much and it wouldn't be worth it to fuss over waiting a bit for you to restock or finding another supplier for widgets, but if the widgets are expensive and prices fluctuate, then getting the widgets now and getting them later could be of great difference.</p><p>You will be liable for any loss that the buyer incurs due to this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless your coupon has a bunch of legalese covering your ass ( and the buyer knows about it when he paid the price of the widget ) , it 's probably not " legal " .In most cases it does n't matter much and it would n't be worth it to fuss over waiting a bit for you to restock or finding another supplier for widgets , but if the widgets are expensive and prices fluctuate , then getting the widgets now and getting them later could be of great difference.You will be liable for any loss that the buyer incurs due to this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless your coupon has a bunch of legalese covering your ass (and the buyer knows about it when he paid the price of the widget), it's probably not "legal".In most cases it doesn't matter much and it wouldn't be worth it to fuss over waiting a bit for you to restock or finding another supplier for widgets, but if the widgets are expensive and prices fluctuate, then getting the widgets now and getting them later could be of great difference.You will be liable for any loss that the buyer incurs due to this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30333050</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>dupeisdead</author>
	<datestamp>1259953860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not directed at you, just generally..

But who would step up and pay for the higher tiered service unless they were told/force to by their ISP?

If you want to download/upload hundreds of gigs a month, sure go for it, but be prepared to pay several hundred dollars for that.

Nothing is unlimited, but when it comes to the internet people think that suddenly this is the exception to the case.

Unlimited for $50/month?  You believed that?
I got a bridge to sell you then lets talk.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not directed at you , just generally. . But who would step up and pay for the higher tiered service unless they were told/force to by their ISP ?
If you want to download/upload hundreds of gigs a month , sure go for it , but be prepared to pay several hundred dollars for that .
Nothing is unlimited , but when it comes to the internet people think that suddenly this is the exception to the case .
Unlimited for $ 50/month ?
You believed that ?
I got a bridge to sell you then lets talk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not directed at you, just generally..

But who would step up and pay for the higher tiered service unless they were told/force to by their ISP?
If you want to download/upload hundreds of gigs a month, sure go for it, but be prepared to pay several hundred dollars for that.
Nothing is unlimited, but when it comes to the internet people think that suddenly this is the exception to the case.
Unlimited for $50/month?
You believed that?
I got a bridge to sell you then lets talk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324546</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>ShadowRangerRIT</author>
	<datestamp>1259946180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because they're worried that if they don't, they'll have to pay for equipment upgrades to handle the extra load, and I doubt they don't have the monitoring in place to figure out whether a "hog" is actually impairing the experience of other customers (after all, you'd need to analyze a whole lot of factors at each link in the chain where connections join, and that costs money too). Their paranoid belief is that half the customers will up and leave because there connection is one step shy of perfect, so they decide to sacrifice a few users to "save" the remaining base.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because they 're worried that if they do n't , they 'll have to pay for equipment upgrades to handle the extra load , and I doubt they do n't have the monitoring in place to figure out whether a " hog " is actually impairing the experience of other customers ( after all , you 'd need to analyze a whole lot of factors at each link in the chain where connections join , and that costs money too ) .
Their paranoid belief is that half the customers will up and leave because there connection is one step shy of perfect , so they decide to sacrifice a few users to " save " the remaining base .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because they're worried that if they don't, they'll have to pay for equipment upgrades to handle the extra load, and I doubt they don't have the monitoring in place to figure out whether a "hog" is actually impairing the experience of other customers (after all, you'd need to analyze a whole lot of factors at each link in the chain where connections join, and that costs money too).
Their paranoid belief is that half the customers will up and leave because there connection is one step shy of perfect, so they decide to sacrifice a few users to "save" the remaining base.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325822</id>
	<title>Re:I do it too</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1259951520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" -- it's in every restaurant.</p></div><p>Actually, only sort of. If there's a pattern to who you refuse service to, it can get you into big trouble. For instance, if you consistently refuse service to black people, you are in violation of a number of civil rights laws.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone " -- it 's in every restaurant.Actually , only sort of .
If there 's a pattern to who you refuse service to , it can get you into big trouble .
For instance , if you consistently refuse service to black people , you are in violation of a number of civil rights laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" -- it's in every restaurant.Actually, only sort of.
If there's a pattern to who you refuse service to, it can get you into big trouble.
For instance, if you consistently refuse service to black people, you are in violation of a number of civil rights laws.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325628</id>
	<title>Re:Same tired argument</title>
	<author>jank1887</author>
	<datestamp>1259950680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"and if the FCC had any spine"</p><p>I believe we've identified the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" and if the FCC had any spine " I believe we 've identified the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"and if the FCC had any spine"I believe we've identified the problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30332610</id>
	<title>Re:Bandwidth can be hogged - I've seen it</title>
	<author>masmullin</author>
	<datestamp>1259947920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>blockbuster costs like $6 a pop... and you have to return it too!  plus you have to actually walk to the fucking place and talk to some pierced weirdo!<br><br>fuck that!</htmltext>
<tokenext>blockbuster costs like $ 6 a pop... and you have to return it too !
plus you have to actually walk to the fucking place and talk to some pierced weirdo ! fuck that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>blockbuster costs like $6 a pop... and you have to return it too!
plus you have to actually walk to the fucking place and talk to some pierced weirdo!fuck that!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30326908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30328762</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Seumas</author>
	<datestamp>1259920680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Their logic is always "the average user only checks their email and maybe the sports scores and a news website". If that's the case, then what harm to those users are the "heavy" users really doing? The nature of the argument undermines the argument to begin with.</p><p>What really frustrates me is that I use a lot of bandwidth and I would happily pay double what I pay now to have double the access (ie, pay for two accounts). Unfortunately, they won't let you do that. This "public utility" that always has a monopoly in each region as far as providing service offers one option and one option only. Period. That's pretty poor service.</p><p>I and others in my household enjoy watching a lot of HD content on netflix, downloading entire games on XBOX, streaming radio stations, VPN'ing into work, watching videos online, keeping vital backups remotely with backup services, downloading PLENTY of IPTV and podcasts in high quality, playing video games, etc. It definitely ads up to a LOT of bandwidth. And I'm willing to pay (not ridiculous jacked up prices, mind you - but I'll pay double to use double, certainly). Unfortunately, I can't get what I as a customer and citizen am willing to pay for, even though the company is granted special access by local government on behalf of me.</p><p>Instead, they consider people like me a pariah, because we don't have the same usage patterns as someone's elderly grandmother that just emails "the kids" once a month.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Their logic is always " the average user only checks their email and maybe the sports scores and a news website " .
If that 's the case , then what harm to those users are the " heavy " users really doing ?
The nature of the argument undermines the argument to begin with.What really frustrates me is that I use a lot of bandwidth and I would happily pay double what I pay now to have double the access ( ie , pay for two accounts ) .
Unfortunately , they wo n't let you do that .
This " public utility " that always has a monopoly in each region as far as providing service offers one option and one option only .
Period. That 's pretty poor service.I and others in my household enjoy watching a lot of HD content on netflix , downloading entire games on XBOX , streaming radio stations , VPN'ing into work , watching videos online , keeping vital backups remotely with backup services , downloading PLENTY of IPTV and podcasts in high quality , playing video games , etc .
It definitely ads up to a LOT of bandwidth .
And I 'm willing to pay ( not ridiculous jacked up prices , mind you - but I 'll pay double to use double , certainly ) .
Unfortunately , I ca n't get what I as a customer and citizen am willing to pay for , even though the company is granted special access by local government on behalf of me.Instead , they consider people like me a pariah , because we do n't have the same usage patterns as someone 's elderly grandmother that just emails " the kids " once a month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their logic is always "the average user only checks their email and maybe the sports scores and a news website".
If that's the case, then what harm to those users are the "heavy" users really doing?
The nature of the argument undermines the argument to begin with.What really frustrates me is that I use a lot of bandwidth and I would happily pay double what I pay now to have double the access (ie, pay for two accounts).
Unfortunately, they won't let you do that.
This "public utility" that always has a monopoly in each region as far as providing service offers one option and one option only.
Period. That's pretty poor service.I and others in my household enjoy watching a lot of HD content on netflix, downloading entire games on XBOX, streaming radio stations, VPN'ing into work, watching videos online, keeping vital backups remotely with backup services, downloading PLENTY of IPTV and podcasts in high quality, playing video games, etc.
It definitely ads up to a LOT of bandwidth.
And I'm willing to pay (not ridiculous jacked up prices, mind you - but I'll pay double to use double, certainly).
Unfortunately, I can't get what I as a customer and citizen am willing to pay for, even though the company is granted special access by local government on behalf of me.Instead, they consider people like me a pariah, because we don't have the same usage patterns as someone's elderly grandmother that just emails "the kids" once a month.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30326366</id>
	<title>Re:No site has ever been slashdotted</title>
	<author>Rising Ape</author>
	<datestamp>1259953920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ethernet. You can approach 99\% utilization on Token-Ring (I have on a production LAN for weeks on end) where Ethernet is pretty much congested arount 16\%. Don't believe me, ask around [com.com].</p></div><p>Hang on, that hasn't been true since switches replaced hubs, thus eliminating the collision problem.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ethernet .
You can approach 99 \ % utilization on Token-Ring ( I have on a production LAN for weeks on end ) where Ethernet is pretty much congested arount 16 \ % .
Do n't believe me , ask around [ com.com ] .Hang on , that has n't been true since switches replaced hubs , thus eliminating the collision problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ethernet.
You can approach 99\% utilization on Token-Ring (I have on a production LAN for weeks on end) where Ethernet is pretty much congested arount 16\%.
Don't believe me, ask around [com.com].Hang on, that hasn't been true since switches replaced hubs, thus eliminating the collision problem.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324646</id>
	<title>Re:Bandwidth can be hogged - I've seen it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259946600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Simple Fix: Limit his download (and more importantly *upload*) bandwidth--tell him to get a torrent client that allows it.  Problem solved.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Simple Fix : Limit his download ( and more importantly * upload * ) bandwidth--tell him to get a torrent client that allows it .
Problem solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simple Fix: Limit his download (and more importantly *upload*) bandwidth--tell him to get a torrent client that allows it.
Problem solved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325262</id>
	<title>Re:I do it too</title>
	<author>Byzantine</author>
	<datestamp>1259949060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While your point is well taken&mdash;and, for that matter, <em>correct</em>&mdash;a restaurant who kicks out an obnoxious customer would still allow them to take their food with them: <i>i.e.</i>, to have what they paid for.  An ISP is well within its right to cut off service at the end of whatever period x a customer has paid for; just not at x-1.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While your point is well taken    and , for that matter , correct    a restaurant who kicks out an obnoxious customer would still allow them to take their food with them : i.e. , to have what they paid for .
An ISP is well within its right to cut off service at the end of whatever period x a customer has paid for ; just not at x-1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While your point is well taken—and, for that matter, correct—a restaurant who kicks out an obnoxious customer would still allow them to take their food with them: i.e., to have what they paid for.
An ISP is well within its right to cut off service at the end of whatever period x a customer has paid for; just not at x-1.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324682</id>
	<title>Re:Bandwidth can be hogged - I've seen it</title>
	<author>ShadowRangerRIT</author>
	<datestamp>1259946780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I should point out that this sort of thing, while true, is often overstated because of poor local network configuration. When I first set up my new Vista machine a couple years back, I noticed that torrents on it would frequently interfere with internet connectivity on other networked devices in the house. I hadn't had this problem before and was curious as to the cause. I initially tried setting the bandwidth priorities by machine IP and by port, setting the desktop and specifically uTorrent's port to the lowest priority for traffic (similar to what ISPs do when they try to limit by protocol, but more accurate and without an explicit cap), but that actually made the situation worse; the torrents ran slower, and the other machines behaved even worse.</p><p>Turned out the problem was caused by the OS. Vista's TCP settings had QoS disabled, so when the router sent messages saying to slow down on the traffic, or just dropped the packets, the machine just ignored it and resent immediately, swamping the router's CPU resources used to filter and prioritize packets. The moment I turned on QoS the problem disappeared. The only network using device in my house that still has a problem is the VOIP modem, largely because QoS doesn't work quickly enough for the latency requirements of the phone, but it's not dropping calls or dropping voice anymore, it's just laggy (and capping the upload on uTorrent fixes it completely; the download doesn't need capping).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I should point out that this sort of thing , while true , is often overstated because of poor local network configuration .
When I first set up my new Vista machine a couple years back , I noticed that torrents on it would frequently interfere with internet connectivity on other networked devices in the house .
I had n't had this problem before and was curious as to the cause .
I initially tried setting the bandwidth priorities by machine IP and by port , setting the desktop and specifically uTorrent 's port to the lowest priority for traffic ( similar to what ISPs do when they try to limit by protocol , but more accurate and without an explicit cap ) , but that actually made the situation worse ; the torrents ran slower , and the other machines behaved even worse.Turned out the problem was caused by the OS .
Vista 's TCP settings had QoS disabled , so when the router sent messages saying to slow down on the traffic , or just dropped the packets , the machine just ignored it and resent immediately , swamping the router 's CPU resources used to filter and prioritize packets .
The moment I turned on QoS the problem disappeared .
The only network using device in my house that still has a problem is the VOIP modem , largely because QoS does n't work quickly enough for the latency requirements of the phone , but it 's not dropping calls or dropping voice anymore , it 's just laggy ( and capping the upload on uTorrent fixes it completely ; the download does n't need capping ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I should point out that this sort of thing, while true, is often overstated because of poor local network configuration.
When I first set up my new Vista machine a couple years back, I noticed that torrents on it would frequently interfere with internet connectivity on other networked devices in the house.
I hadn't had this problem before and was curious as to the cause.
I initially tried setting the bandwidth priorities by machine IP and by port, setting the desktop and specifically uTorrent's port to the lowest priority for traffic (similar to what ISPs do when they try to limit by protocol, but more accurate and without an explicit cap), but that actually made the situation worse; the torrents ran slower, and the other machines behaved even worse.Turned out the problem was caused by the OS.
Vista's TCP settings had QoS disabled, so when the router sent messages saying to slow down on the traffic, or just dropped the packets, the machine just ignored it and resent immediately, swamping the router's CPU resources used to filter and prioritize packets.
The moment I turned on QoS the problem disappeared.
The only network using device in my house that still has a problem is the VOIP modem, largely because QoS doesn't work quickly enough for the latency requirements of the phone, but it's not dropping calls or dropping voice anymore, it's just laggy (and capping the upload on uTorrent fixes it completely; the download doesn't need capping).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325048</id>
	<title>Using what you bought</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1259948340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you bought a month of internet use at up certain speed, you can't be blamed if you use it, even if you use all of it. If doing that causes problems to other customers or the ISP, is isp fault for selling more than what they have, not yours.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you bought a month of internet use at up certain speed , you ca n't be blamed if you use it , even if you use all of it .
If doing that causes problems to other customers or the ISP , is isp fault for selling more than what they have , not yours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you bought a month of internet use at up certain speed, you can't be blamed if you use it, even if you use all of it.
If doing that causes problems to other customers or the ISP, is isp fault for selling more than what they have, not yours.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30326132</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1259952900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i wonder if this is actually the case.  Do people who drive more cause more traffic on their way to work?  Seems that granny's Sunday drive causes just as much traffic as a cab driver... 1 car.</p><p>Does data cause some kind of wear and tear?  Seems to me a packet is a packet.  That more of them are going to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.56 than to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.27 shouldn't matter.  Does the fiber going to my house get tired faster than the same cable going to granny's house? Do they need to hire more techie because i'm pulling down torrents?  Seems more likely that the companies are just looking for an excuse to charge more.</p><p>Don't the operators pay for the bandwidth whether it's not used at all or if it's pegged?</p><p>Another question: Why is this vital service in the hands of companies trying to charge as much as they can for as little service as possible?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i wonder if this is actually the case .
Do people who drive more cause more traffic on their way to work ?
Seems that granny 's Sunday drive causes just as much traffic as a cab driver... 1 car.Does data cause some kind of wear and tear ?
Seems to me a packet is a packet .
That more of them are going to .56 than to .27 should n't matter .
Does the fiber going to my house get tired faster than the same cable going to granny 's house ?
Do they need to hire more techie because i 'm pulling down torrents ?
Seems more likely that the companies are just looking for an excuse to charge more.Do n't the operators pay for the bandwidth whether it 's not used at all or if it 's pegged ? Another question : Why is this vital service in the hands of companies trying to charge as much as they can for as little service as possible ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i wonder if this is actually the case.
Do people who drive more cause more traffic on their way to work?
Seems that granny's Sunday drive causes just as much traffic as a cab driver... 1 car.Does data cause some kind of wear and tear?
Seems to me a packet is a packet.
That more of them are going to .56 than to .27 shouldn't matter.
Does the fiber going to my house get tired faster than the same cable going to granny's house?
Do they need to hire more techie because i'm pulling down torrents?
Seems more likely that the companies are just looking for an excuse to charge more.Don't the operators pay for the bandwidth whether it's not used at all or if it's pegged?Another question: Why is this vital service in the hands of companies trying to charge as much as they can for as little service as possible?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30327152</id>
	<title>Bandwidth hog</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259956800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only bandwidth hogs I know of are the ad servers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only bandwidth hogs I know of are the ad servers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only bandwidth hogs I know of are the ad servers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324432</id>
	<title>East ireland</title>
	<author>jaggeh</author>
	<datestamp>1259945700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i was kicked off ESAT's 'no limits' service back in 2001 because i used it too much/was a heavy user. shortly after they instituted a time cap on the 'no limits' service.</p><p>in hindsight im sure i could have brought them to court over the trade discription.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i was kicked off ESAT 's 'no limits ' service back in 2001 because i used it too much/was a heavy user .
shortly after they instituted a time cap on the 'no limits ' service.in hindsight im sure i could have brought them to court over the trade discription .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i was kicked off ESAT's 'no limits' service back in 2001 because i used it too much/was a heavy user.
shortly after they instituted a time cap on the 'no limits' service.in hindsight im sure i could have brought them to court over the trade discription.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325378</id>
	<title>Re:I do it too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259949600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference is that ISPs are really more like utilities.  The gas company - even if privately owned - can't simply "reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."  In fact, depending on your local laws, there may be quite a few restrictions on the gas company, such as not allowing them to cut people off during the winter.</p><p>I don't believe that \_legally\_ ISPs are considered utilities, but socially and functionally they certainly are, since it's a more-or-less essential service, that you can only buy from one or a few local providers.  (It's certainly as important as phone service, for an example - which is definitely considered a utility)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference is that ISPs are really more like utilities .
The gas company - even if privately owned - ca n't simply " reserve the right to refuse service to anyone .
" In fact , depending on your local laws , there may be quite a few restrictions on the gas company , such as not allowing them to cut people off during the winter.I do n't believe that \ _legally \ _ ISPs are considered utilities , but socially and functionally they certainly are , since it 's a more-or-less essential service , that you can only buy from one or a few local providers .
( It 's certainly as important as phone service , for an example - which is definitely considered a utility )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference is that ISPs are really more like utilities.
The gas company - even if privately owned - can't simply "reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.
"  In fact, depending on your local laws, there may be quite a few restrictions on the gas company, such as not allowing them to cut people off during the winter.I don't believe that \_legally\_ ISPs are considered utilities, but socially and functionally they certainly are, since it's a more-or-less essential service, that you can only buy from one or a few local providers.
(It's certainly as important as phone service, for an example - which is definitely considered a utility)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325682</id>
	<title>Re:Bandwidth can be hogged - I've seen it</title>
	<author>Bakkster</author>
	<datestamp>1259950920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is correct.  There's no reasonable way for them to 'guarantee' a minimum speed, since an outage (either theirs or the backbone) or other interruption is a huge issue.
</p><p>There are really two problems:<br>
1) The networks aren't always transparent about their management practices.  If you throtle a user for using &gt;50\% of their max for more than 15 minutes, tell me that.  At least I know up front.<br>
2) <strong>The inability to change providers</strong>.  If I don't like Comcast's management policies, I can't get another cable internet service.  I'm stuck with DSL or fiber (if I'm lucky).  Europe has significantly more choice of available ISPs in any given area.  This allows competition where a customer can actually decide to use a different company based on network management.
</p><p> <strong>This is the reason why we're stuck</strong>, we have little choice to avoid network management policies, aside from forgoing internet or possibly reducing your max speed (both options worse than sticking it out).  Until we can effectively 'vote with our dollar', we have little recourse.
</p><p>Look at how well (comparatively) this has worked for the cell phone industry.  It's a race to provide free perks, and if you don't like your carrier you have the ability to switch to at least 2 other, roughly equivalent, carriers.  There's no enforced monopoly for them to hide behind, they have to compete or they lose money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is correct .
There 's no reasonable way for them to 'guarantee ' a minimum speed , since an outage ( either theirs or the backbone ) or other interruption is a huge issue .
There are really two problems : 1 ) The networks are n't always transparent about their management practices .
If you throtle a user for using &gt; 50 \ % of their max for more than 15 minutes , tell me that .
At least I know up front .
2 ) The inability to change providers .
If I do n't like Comcast 's management policies , I ca n't get another cable internet service .
I 'm stuck with DSL or fiber ( if I 'm lucky ) .
Europe has significantly more choice of available ISPs in any given area .
This allows competition where a customer can actually decide to use a different company based on network management .
This is the reason why we 're stuck , we have little choice to avoid network management policies , aside from forgoing internet or possibly reducing your max speed ( both options worse than sticking it out ) .
Until we can effectively 'vote with our dollar ' , we have little recourse .
Look at how well ( comparatively ) this has worked for the cell phone industry .
It 's a race to provide free perks , and if you do n't like your carrier you have the ability to switch to at least 2 other , roughly equivalent , carriers .
There 's no enforced monopoly for them to hide behind , they have to compete or they lose money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is correct.
There's no reasonable way for them to 'guarantee' a minimum speed, since an outage (either theirs or the backbone) or other interruption is a huge issue.
There are really two problems:
1) The networks aren't always transparent about their management practices.
If you throtle a user for using &gt;50\% of their max for more than 15 minutes, tell me that.
At least I know up front.
2) The inability to change providers.
If I don't like Comcast's management policies, I can't get another cable internet service.
I'm stuck with DSL or fiber (if I'm lucky).
Europe has significantly more choice of available ISPs in any given area.
This allows competition where a customer can actually decide to use a different company based on network management.
This is the reason why we're stuck, we have little choice to avoid network management policies, aside from forgoing internet or possibly reducing your max speed (both options worse than sticking it out).
Until we can effectively 'vote with our dollar', we have little recourse.
Look at how well (comparatively) this has worked for the cell phone industry.
It's a race to provide free perks, and if you don't like your carrier you have the ability to switch to at least 2 other, roughly equivalent, carriers.
There's no enforced monopoly for them to hide behind, they have to compete or they lose money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30326780</id>
	<title>Re:I do it too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259955240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I think also such behaviour is called fraud.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I think also such behaviour is called fraud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I think also such behaviour is called fraud.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325934</id>
	<title>Re:I do it too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259951940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I also go through my client list and drop those that consume more of my time and resources in favour of the easier clients who ultimately improve my business at a lesser cost.  What's wrong with that?  My company, my rules.  "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"  --  it's in every restaurant.  Why would you expect a business to serve you?  Why would you consider it a right?</p></div><p>Because they are granted local monopoly protection, as well as benefits that they don't pay for (right of way) by government.</p><p>If they want to act like a regular business, then they should be treated like a regular business.  I would love to negotiate a fee for their cables running under my front lawn.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I also go through my client list and drop those that consume more of my time and resources in favour of the easier clients who ultimately improve my business at a lesser cost .
What 's wrong with that ?
My company , my rules .
" We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone " -- it 's in every restaurant .
Why would you expect a business to serve you ?
Why would you consider it a right ? Because they are granted local monopoly protection , as well as benefits that they do n't pay for ( right of way ) by government.If they want to act like a regular business , then they should be treated like a regular business .
I would love to negotiate a fee for their cables running under my front lawn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also go through my client list and drop those that consume more of my time and resources in favour of the easier clients who ultimately improve my business at a lesser cost.
What's wrong with that?
My company, my rules.
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"  --  it's in every restaurant.
Why would you expect a business to serve you?
Why would you consider it a right?Because they are granted local monopoly protection, as well as benefits that they don't pay for (right of way) by government.If they want to act like a regular business, then they should be treated like a regular business.
I would love to negotiate a fee for their cables running under my front lawn.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325354</id>
	<title>Re:I do it too</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1259949480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You might have a point if there were actual competition in the bandwidth market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You might have a point if there were actual competition in the bandwidth market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You might have a point if there were actual competition in the bandwidth market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30330574</id>
	<title>Re:I do it too</title>
	<author>devman</author>
	<datestamp>1259929080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Probably the most insightful comment made on this topic and completely passed over by moderators. People who complain about this are victims of there own wishful thinking and lack of understand how the world works. The meaning of "up to" is pretty clear, if you want a guaranteed connection with and SLA be prepared to pay a business class price for it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably the most insightful comment made on this topic and completely passed over by moderators .
People who complain about this are victims of there own wishful thinking and lack of understand how the world works .
The meaning of " up to " is pretty clear , if you want a guaranteed connection with and SLA be prepared to pay a business class price for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably the most insightful comment made on this topic and completely passed over by moderators.
People who complain about this are victims of there own wishful thinking and lack of understand how the world works.
The meaning of "up to" is pretty clear, if you want a guaranteed connection with and SLA be prepared to pay a business class price for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30327994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30328820</id>
	<title>Cogeco</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1259920920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just got my bill from Cogeco Cable the other day up here in Ontario, Canada.</p><p>I has rather pissed to see that I got charged an additional 30$ on top of the 70$ I already pay monthly for my CableTV/Internets. My cap is 60GB and I exceeded that. I don't contest that. I also concede that Cogeco has a right to charge for extra bandwidth over cap.</p><p>What does piss me off, is that they charge 1.50$ a GB, where it should be more inline with 0.25$ a GB. They and Bell are using their duopoly to artificially inflate their numbers as usual.</p><p>However even that I could maybe live with, what really pisses me off is that we are more less blind. You see, as part of your online account services you can monitor your "Internet Usage" which I did use to make sure I didn't exceed my cap. In most cases I can schedule my downloading appropriately to my cap, and if I REALLY want to download, then I have full disclosure and know how much it will cost me if I so choose. However, what they DON'T tell you (if you search around it is in small print someplace) is that the stupid POS "Internet Usage" tool, only updates every day or two. So what happened to me is I starting downloading, hit some great speeds, and basically killed my cap and exceeded it in TWO days without notice. Then on the third day I see I am at 150\% of my cap, up from 0\%. That sure is a useful tool!</p><p>Sure one could argue, that its your responsibility to keep track of this sort of thing, however I would argue they your wrong. For one you are paying for this service they should be required to provide this better, and secondly they are the ones stipulating a limit on you, they should be responsible for monitoring not me. At any time (and I never have) I could march outside and look at my electric meter, and see exactly how much I have used and are currently using.</p><p>God I hate them so much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just got my bill from Cogeco Cable the other day up here in Ontario , Canada.I has rather pissed to see that I got charged an additional 30 $ on top of the 70 $ I already pay monthly for my CableTV/Internets .
My cap is 60GB and I exceeded that .
I do n't contest that .
I also concede that Cogeco has a right to charge for extra bandwidth over cap.What does piss me off , is that they charge 1.50 $ a GB , where it should be more inline with 0.25 $ a GB .
They and Bell are using their duopoly to artificially inflate their numbers as usual.However even that I could maybe live with , what really pisses me off is that we are more less blind .
You see , as part of your online account services you can monitor your " Internet Usage " which I did use to make sure I did n't exceed my cap .
In most cases I can schedule my downloading appropriately to my cap , and if I REALLY want to download , then I have full disclosure and know how much it will cost me if I so choose .
However , what they DO N'T tell you ( if you search around it is in small print someplace ) is that the stupid POS " Internet Usage " tool , only updates every day or two .
So what happened to me is I starting downloading , hit some great speeds , and basically killed my cap and exceeded it in TWO days without notice .
Then on the third day I see I am at 150 \ % of my cap , up from 0 \ % .
That sure is a useful tool ! Sure one could argue , that its your responsibility to keep track of this sort of thing , however I would argue they your wrong .
For one you are paying for this service they should be required to provide this better , and secondly they are the ones stipulating a limit on you , they should be responsible for monitoring not me .
At any time ( and I never have ) I could march outside and look at my electric meter , and see exactly how much I have used and are currently using.God I hate them so much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just got my bill from Cogeco Cable the other day up here in Ontario, Canada.I has rather pissed to see that I got charged an additional 30$ on top of the 70$ I already pay monthly for my CableTV/Internets.
My cap is 60GB and I exceeded that.
I don't contest that.
I also concede that Cogeco has a right to charge for extra bandwidth over cap.What does piss me off, is that they charge 1.50$ a GB, where it should be more inline with 0.25$ a GB.
They and Bell are using their duopoly to artificially inflate their numbers as usual.However even that I could maybe live with, what really pisses me off is that we are more less blind.
You see, as part of your online account services you can monitor your "Internet Usage" which I did use to make sure I didn't exceed my cap.
In most cases I can schedule my downloading appropriately to my cap, and if I REALLY want to download, then I have full disclosure and know how much it will cost me if I so choose.
However, what they DON'T tell you (if you search around it is in small print someplace) is that the stupid POS "Internet Usage" tool, only updates every day or two.
So what happened to me is I starting downloading, hit some great speeds, and basically killed my cap and exceeded it in TWO days without notice.
Then on the third day I see I am at 150\% of my cap, up from 0\%.
That sure is a useful tool!Sure one could argue, that its your responsibility to keep track of this sort of thing, however I would argue they your wrong.
For one you are paying for this service they should be required to provide this better, and secondly they are the ones stipulating a limit on you, they should be responsible for monitoring not me.
At any time (and I never have) I could march outside and look at my electric meter, and see exactly how much I have used and are currently using.God I hate them so much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30329416</id>
	<title>Re:Same tired argument</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259923560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A slashdotter doesn't know the difference between bits and bytes?</p><p>What the fuck has happened?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A slashdotter does n't know the difference between bits and bytes ? What the fuck has happened ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A slashdotter doesn't know the difference between bits and bytes?What the fuck has happened?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30327070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325368</id>
	<title>hold them accountable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259949540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you pay for up to 10MB per second bandwidth service then the ISP is selling you a Maximum 10MB/s x 31536000 seconds in an average year. I believe this is a maximun of 315.4TB a year they are being paid money to provide.<br>The "average" person will never use that much but this is what is advertised, paid for, and agreed upon. The ISP should be held responsible to provide the agreed upon and paid for service. If they cannot provide then they shouldn't be selling the service, not punishing the people that are paying for the agreed upon service. IANAL, just my opinion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you pay for up to 10MB per second bandwidth service then the ISP is selling you a Maximum 10MB/s x 31536000 seconds in an average year .
I believe this is a maximun of 315.4TB a year they are being paid money to provide.The " average " person will never use that much but this is what is advertised , paid for , and agreed upon .
The ISP should be held responsible to provide the agreed upon and paid for service .
If they can not provide then they should n't be selling the service , not punishing the people that are paying for the agreed upon service .
IANAL , just my opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you pay for up to 10MB per second bandwidth service then the ISP is selling you a Maximum 10MB/s x 31536000 seconds in an average year.
I believe this is a maximun of 315.4TB a year they are being paid money to provide.The "average" person will never use that much but this is what is advertised, paid for, and agreed upon.
The ISP should be held responsible to provide the agreed upon and paid for service.
If they cannot provide then they shouldn't be selling the service, not punishing the people that are paying for the agreed upon service.
IANAL, just my opinion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324380</id>
	<title>No site has ever been slashdotted</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259945520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because TCP doesn't allow it.</p><p>I hear all the websites are switching from token ring because of this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because TCP does n't allow it.I hear all the websites are switching from token ring because of this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because TCP doesn't allow it.I hear all the websites are switching from token ring because of this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324668</id>
	<title>Re:Bandwidth can be hogged - I've seen it</title>
	<author>jeffmeden</author>
	<datestamp>1259946720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The basic counter argument is that TCP "fairness" assumes everyone wants the same experience.  As you pointed out, a true bandwidth hog doesn't care about the latency during their hogging sessions since they plan around them, and therefore arguing that TCP is fair because it treats all packets the same is pure rubbish.  If everyone (including the hog) is trying to make a VOIP call or play WOW then sure, the system is fair because the hog has degraded service just like everyone else.  The enterprising hog simply waits for periods when they don't care about latency and cranks up the download speed, ruining the experience for everyone else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The basic counter argument is that TCP " fairness " assumes everyone wants the same experience .
As you pointed out , a true bandwidth hog does n't care about the latency during their hogging sessions since they plan around them , and therefore arguing that TCP is fair because it treats all packets the same is pure rubbish .
If everyone ( including the hog ) is trying to make a VOIP call or play WOW then sure , the system is fair because the hog has degraded service just like everyone else .
The enterprising hog simply waits for periods when they do n't care about latency and cranks up the download speed , ruining the experience for everyone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The basic counter argument is that TCP "fairness" assumes everyone wants the same experience.
As you pointed out, a true bandwidth hog doesn't care about the latency during their hogging sessions since they plan around them, and therefore arguing that TCP is fair because it treats all packets the same is pure rubbish.
If everyone (including the hog) is trying to make a VOIP call or play WOW then sure, the system is fair because the hog has degraded service just like everyone else.
The enterprising hog simply waits for periods when they don't care about latency and cranks up the download speed, ruining the experience for everyone else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30327592</id>
	<title>Re:I do it too</title>
	<author>Zekolas</author>
	<datestamp>1259958780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the issue is they market unlimited access.

For example if a restaurant advertise a  meal as "All you can eat" but then they cut customers off after their 3rd plate I assume most would think this is bad business or false advertising.

I really think the issue is they are being sold "Unlimited Access" but really they do not get it unlimited access. I guess the difference is when you walk into a restaurant you do not sign a contract with fine print before you eat your all you can eat meal.

Either way its deceptive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the issue is they market unlimited access .
For example if a restaurant advertise a meal as " All you can eat " but then they cut customers off after their 3rd plate I assume most would think this is bad business or false advertising .
I really think the issue is they are being sold " Unlimited Access " but really they do not get it unlimited access .
I guess the difference is when you walk into a restaurant you do not sign a contract with fine print before you eat your all you can eat meal .
Either way its deceptive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the issue is they market unlimited access.
For example if a restaurant advertise a  meal as "All you can eat" but then they cut customers off after their 3rd plate I assume most would think this is bad business or false advertising.
I really think the issue is they are being sold "Unlimited Access" but really they do not get it unlimited access.
I guess the difference is when you walk into a restaurant you do not sign a contract with fine print before you eat your all you can eat meal.
Either way its deceptive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324926</id>
	<title>Re:Bandwidth can be hogged - I've seen it</title>
	<author>Zen-Mind</author>
	<datestamp>1259947860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you pointed-out the real problem. The telcos want you to pay for the 70Mbps line, but don't want you to use it. If you cannot support a users doing 70Mbps, don't sell 70Mbps. I know that building an infrastructure based on the assumption that all users will use maximum bandwidth would be costly, but then adapt your marketting practices; sell lower sustained speed and put a "speed on demand" service that is easy to use so when you want/need to download the new 8GB PS3 game you can play before the next week. Otherwise you can always have a maximum sustained bandwidth based on high/low period of the day, but this needs to be clear.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you pointed-out the real problem .
The telcos want you to pay for the 70Mbps line , but do n't want you to use it .
If you can not support a users doing 70Mbps , do n't sell 70Mbps .
I know that building an infrastructure based on the assumption that all users will use maximum bandwidth would be costly , but then adapt your marketting practices ; sell lower sustained speed and put a " speed on demand " service that is easy to use so when you want/need to download the new 8GB PS3 game you can play before the next week .
Otherwise you can always have a maximum sustained bandwidth based on high/low period of the day , but this needs to be clear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you pointed-out the real problem.
The telcos want you to pay for the 70Mbps line, but don't want you to use it.
If you cannot support a users doing 70Mbps, don't sell 70Mbps.
I know that building an infrastructure based on the assumption that all users will use maximum bandwidth would be costly, but then adapt your marketting practices; sell lower sustained speed and put a "speed on demand" service that is easy to use so when you want/need to download the new 8GB PS3 game you can play before the next week.
Otherwise you can always have a maximum sustained bandwidth based on high/low period of the day, but this needs to be clear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324652</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30328032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30329434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30326844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30337010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30327592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30327406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30330086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30328170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30328762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30327762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30327994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30330574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30326644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30334118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30326950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30326132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30332318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30329804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30326084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30328478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30326780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30326366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30331738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30333050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30326908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30332610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30327070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30329416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30328124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30333614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30326474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30326840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30329132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30326670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1518221_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1518221.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324984
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1518221.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30326386
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1518221.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324994
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325628
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30328478
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30326084
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325690
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30327070
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30329416
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1518221.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30326840
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1518221.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30326404
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1518221.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30329132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324554
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1518221.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324658
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325496
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30326644
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30326366
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30327762
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1518221.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324620
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1518221.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30328820
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1518221.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324398
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1518221.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325436
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1518221.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324468
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324978
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30328032
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30333050
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30326132
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30332318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324480
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30328762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325526
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1518221.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30329434
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1518221.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324880
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1518221.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324646
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30327406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324728
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324652
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324982
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30326670
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325682
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30330086
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324926
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30326908
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30332610
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30326950
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30326844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324966
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324642
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325190
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30326474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324688
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1518221.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325414
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1518221.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324990
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1518221.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30324810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325822
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30333614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30327592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30329804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325336
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30326780
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30327994
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30330574
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30334118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30328170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30331738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30337010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30328124
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1518221.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1518221.30325664
</commentlist>
</conversation>
