<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_17_1411227</id>
	<title>FCC Proposes 100Mbps Minimum Home Broadband Speed</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1266419460000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>oxide7 writes <i>"The US Federal Communications Commission <a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20100216/fcc-to-propose-faster-broadband-speeds.htm">unveiled a plan on Tuesday</a> that would require Internet providers to offer minimum home connection speeds by 2020, a proposal that some telecommunications companies panned as unrealistic. The FCC wants service providers to offer home Internet data transmission speeds of 100 megabits per second to 100 million homes by a decade from now, Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski said."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>oxide7 writes " The US Federal Communications Commission unveiled a plan on Tuesday that would require Internet providers to offer minimum home connection speeds by 2020 , a proposal that some telecommunications companies panned as unrealistic .
The FCC wants service providers to offer home Internet data transmission speeds of 100 megabits per second to 100 million homes by a decade from now , Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski said .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>oxide7 writes "The US Federal Communications Commission unveiled a plan on Tuesday that would require Internet providers to offer minimum home connection speeds by 2020, a proposal that some telecommunications companies panned as unrealistic.
The FCC wants service providers to offer home Internet data transmission speeds of 100 megabits per second to 100 million homes by a decade from now, Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski said.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31177914</id>
	<title>FCC not trying hard enough ...</title>
	<author>therealkevinkretz</author>
	<datestamp>1265026260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... if they really were doing their job they'd mandate *150* Mbps.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... if they really were doing their job they 'd mandate * 150 * Mbps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... if they really were doing their job they'd mandate *150* Mbps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170610</id>
	<title>Re:What's next?</title>
	<author>myspace-cn</author>
	<datestamp>1265044860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In fact the FCC shouldn't have any authority at all over the web. They have power and frequency they are supposed to oversee. This is why you are confused at to what the FCC's authority is. By jumping on the boat of the FCC has authority because you hear they're "for net neutrality" you blindly ignore at your own peril the fact "the FCC's Original mission statement" is now another POW/MIA of the psyop cyber war.</p><p>THE FCC IS SUPPOSED TO BE MANAGING POWER AND FREQ'S<br>NOT GRANDMA'S UNMANAGED FUCKING WEBSERVER ON A NETWORK!</p><p>ARE YOU SO STUPID AS TO HAND OVER AUTHORITY FROM THESE RECENT TRICKS?!<br>LET THE FCC REGULATE THE WEB AND IT WILL BE 100\%<br>COMPLETE FASCISM</p><p>NOTICE HOW ALL THE PUBLIC SPECTRUM IS NOW COMMERCIALLY OWNED FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS?</p><p>NOTICE HOW BROADCAST TELEVISION STILL HAS VAGUE RULES WITH NO TEETH OR DATE TO MAKE THEIR PUBLIC FILES AVAILABLE ONLINE!?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact the FCC should n't have any authority at all over the web .
They have power and frequency they are supposed to oversee .
This is why you are confused at to what the FCC 's authority is .
By jumping on the boat of the FCC has authority because you hear they 're " for net neutrality " you blindly ignore at your own peril the fact " the FCC 's Original mission statement " is now another POW/MIA of the psyop cyber war.THE FCC IS SUPPOSED TO BE MANAGING POWER AND FREQ'SNOT GRANDMA 'S UNMANAGED FUCKING WEBSERVER ON A NETWORK ! ARE YOU SO STUPID AS TO HAND OVER AUTHORITY FROM THESE RECENT TRICKS ?
! LET THE FCC REGULATE THE WEB AND IT WILL BE 100 \ % COMPLETE FASCISMNOTICE HOW ALL THE PUBLIC SPECTRUM IS NOW COMMERCIALLY OWNED FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS ? NOTICE HOW BROADCAST TELEVISION STILL HAS VAGUE RULES WITH NO TEETH OR DATE TO MAKE THEIR PUBLIC FILES AVAILABLE ONLINE !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact the FCC shouldn't have any authority at all over the web.
They have power and frequency they are supposed to oversee.
This is why you are confused at to what the FCC's authority is.
By jumping on the boat of the FCC has authority because you hear they're "for net neutrality" you blindly ignore at your own peril the fact "the FCC's Original mission statement" is now another POW/MIA of the psyop cyber war.THE FCC IS SUPPOSED TO BE MANAGING POWER AND FREQ'SNOT GRANDMA'S UNMANAGED FUCKING WEBSERVER ON A NETWORK!ARE YOU SO STUPID AS TO HAND OVER AUTHORITY FROM THESE RECENT TRICKS?
!LET THE FCC REGULATE THE WEB AND IT WILL BE 100\%COMPLETE FASCISMNOTICE HOW ALL THE PUBLIC SPECTRUM IS NOW COMMERCIALLY OWNED FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS?NOTICE HOW BROADCAST TELEVISION STILL HAS VAGUE RULES WITH NO TEETH OR DATE TO MAKE THEIR PUBLIC FILES AVAILABLE ONLINE!
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170294</id>
	<title>Do they also mandate maximum prices?</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1265043660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bet ISPs will be rubbing their hands together over this: "100mbps minimum? No problem - just make everybody pay for a T6 connection!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet ISPs will be rubbing their hands together over this : " 100mbps minimum ?
No problem - just make everybody pay for a T6 connection !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet ISPs will be rubbing their hands together over this: "100mbps minimum?
No problem - just make everybody pay for a T6 connection!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171760</id>
	<title>Re:That would be all well and good</title>
	<author>StuartHankins</author>
	<datestamp>1265048220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mod parent up. A totally workable, tried-n-true, relatively inexpensive solution for the issue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up .
A totally workable , tried-n-true , relatively inexpensive solution for the issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up.
A totally workable, tried-n-true, relatively inexpensive solution for the issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31176110</id>
	<title>Re:Already there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265019180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;If I read you correctly, that's 20Mbps up and down (symmetric speeds) for 26 Euros... approx $36. Wow we're getting shafted here in the US.<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;</p><p>I can't believe how spoiled Americans are (no offense intended).<br><b>We've got ~$130,000 national debt hanging over every U.S. home,</b><br>and you're worried about a measly tenner???</p><p>How about just being satisfied with what you've got?  I have 1 Mbit/s internet, and it lets me watch any streaming video/tv show I want to see.  I've downloaded more gigabytes in the last year than my whole life, and the cost is only $14.99.  More importantly: It didn't require any digging of my front street, because it comes in via the existing twisted pair line.</p><p>I'm happy.  Why aren't you?</p><p>The FCC's proposed 100 Mbit/s line is great in theory, but what are the practical limits?  Who is going to pay to dig-up thousands of miles of dirt to hookup Farmers Pat, Joe, and Billy-Bob in Nomansland Idaho (a place where the cows outnumber the people)?  The government???  Sorry but China isn't loaning us any more money.</p><p>How about a *practical* answer?  i.e. Simply tell the phone company to connect DSL, using existing twisted-pair lines, to anyone who demands it.  Abracadabra.  Broadband (i.e. wider than a phoneline) for everyone and available virtually overnight without any need to do digging.</p><p>And as for cost, we need more competition to bring down cost.  Forget the current Cable TV monopoly - every home should be able to ask for Comcast, or Cox, or Cablevision, or Time-Warner, or AppleTV, or whoever.  There's enough room under the streets to run 10-20 fiber optics, so why limit it to just 1?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; If I read you correctly , that 's 20Mbps up and down ( symmetric speeds ) for 26 Euros... approx $ 36 .
Wow we 're getting shafted here in the US. &gt; &gt; &gt; I ca n't believe how spoiled Americans are ( no offense intended ) .We 've got ~ $ 130,000 national debt hanging over every U.S. home,and you 're worried about a measly tenner ? ?
? How about just being satisfied with what you 've got ?
I have 1 Mbit/s internet , and it lets me watch any streaming video/tv show I want to see .
I 've downloaded more gigabytes in the last year than my whole life , and the cost is only $ 14.99 .
More importantly : It did n't require any digging of my front street , because it comes in via the existing twisted pair line.I 'm happy .
Why are n't you ? The FCC 's proposed 100 Mbit/s line is great in theory , but what are the practical limits ?
Who is going to pay to dig-up thousands of miles of dirt to hookup Farmers Pat , Joe , and Billy-Bob in Nomansland Idaho ( a place where the cows outnumber the people ) ?
The government ? ? ?
Sorry but China is n't loaning us any more money.How about a * practical * answer ?
i.e. Simply tell the phone company to connect DSL , using existing twisted-pair lines , to anyone who demands it .
Abracadabra. Broadband ( i.e .
wider than a phoneline ) for everyone and available virtually overnight without any need to do digging.And as for cost , we need more competition to bring down cost .
Forget the current Cable TV monopoly - every home should be able to ask for Comcast , or Cox , or Cablevision , or Time-Warner , or AppleTV , or whoever .
There 's enough room under the streets to run 10-20 fiber optics , so why limit it to just 1 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;If I read you correctly, that's 20Mbps up and down (symmetric speeds) for 26 Euros... approx $36.
Wow we're getting shafted here in the US.&gt;&gt;&gt;I can't believe how spoiled Americans are (no offense intended).We've got ~$130,000 national debt hanging over every U.S. home,and you're worried about a measly tenner??
?How about just being satisfied with what you've got?
I have 1 Mbit/s internet, and it lets me watch any streaming video/tv show I want to see.
I've downloaded more gigabytes in the last year than my whole life, and the cost is only $14.99.
More importantly: It didn't require any digging of my front street, because it comes in via the existing twisted pair line.I'm happy.
Why aren't you?The FCC's proposed 100 Mbit/s line is great in theory, but what are the practical limits?
Who is going to pay to dig-up thousands of miles of dirt to hookup Farmers Pat, Joe, and Billy-Bob in Nomansland Idaho (a place where the cows outnumber the people)?
The government???
Sorry but China isn't loaning us any more money.How about a *practical* answer?
i.e. Simply tell the phone company to connect DSL, using existing twisted-pair lines, to anyone who demands it.
Abracadabra.  Broadband (i.e.
wider than a phoneline) for everyone and available virtually overnight without any need to do digging.And as for cost, we need more competition to bring down cost.
Forget the current Cable TV monopoly - every home should be able to ask for Comcast, or Cox, or Cablevision, or Time-Warner, or AppleTV, or whoever.
There's enough room under the streets to run 10-20 fiber optics, so why limit it to just 1?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31185312</id>
	<title>Re:DigiTechGuy</title>
	<author>therealkevinkretz</author>
	<datestamp>1266512040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everything that hadn't been discovered in 1787 isn't automatically fair game for the federal government.  It isn't a list of things that are forbidden to government, with the implication that the rest is allowed - it's an enumerated list of the powers allowed it, with the explicit instructions that anything else *isn't*.

You don't have an inalienable right to fat bandwidth, I'm sorry.  No reasonable interpretation of the Constitution says that you do.


And I see a lot of "teabagger" insults directed mostly at knee-jerks on the right by knee-jerks on the left.  Looking at a few "tea party" web sites shows that their limited set of issues is almost completely limited to opposing new taxes and opposing growth of government.

Disagree with those things if you like, but they're not such ridiculous positions that you can dismiss everyone who agrees with them by name-calling.  Or, in your case, by dismissing the position of someone *you* think sounds like them, also by name calling.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everything that had n't been discovered in 1787 is n't automatically fair game for the federal government .
It is n't a list of things that are forbidden to government , with the implication that the rest is allowed - it 's an enumerated list of the powers allowed it , with the explicit instructions that anything else * is n't * .
You do n't have an inalienable right to fat bandwidth , I 'm sorry .
No reasonable interpretation of the Constitution says that you do .
And I see a lot of " teabagger " insults directed mostly at knee-jerks on the right by knee-jerks on the left .
Looking at a few " tea party " web sites shows that their limited set of issues is almost completely limited to opposing new taxes and opposing growth of government .
Disagree with those things if you like , but they 're not such ridiculous positions that you can dismiss everyone who agrees with them by name-calling .
Or , in your case , by dismissing the position of someone * you * think sounds like them , also by name calling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everything that hadn't been discovered in 1787 isn't automatically fair game for the federal government.
It isn't a list of things that are forbidden to government, with the implication that the rest is allowed - it's an enumerated list of the powers allowed it, with the explicit instructions that anything else *isn't*.
You don't have an inalienable right to fat bandwidth, I'm sorry.
No reasonable interpretation of the Constitution says that you do.
And I see a lot of "teabagger" insults directed mostly at knee-jerks on the right by knee-jerks on the left.
Looking at a few "tea party" web sites shows that their limited set of issues is almost completely limited to opposing new taxes and opposing growth of government.
Disagree with those things if you like, but they're not such ridiculous positions that you can dismiss everyone who agrees with them by name-calling.
Or, in your case, by dismissing the position of someone *you* think sounds like them, also by name calling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170312</id>
	<title>More nanny State bullshit.</title>
	<author>axor1337</author>
	<datestamp>1265043780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My 20 Mbps comcast works great and is more than fast enough even with all the HD movie's I download. let market forces determine connection speeds.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My 20 Mbps comcast works great and is more than fast enough even with all the HD movie 's I download .
let market forces determine connection speeds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My 20 Mbps comcast works great and is more than fast enough even with all the HD movie's I download.
let market forces determine connection speeds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170508</id>
	<title>Re:We're going to MARS!</title>
	<author>cgenman</author>
	<datestamp>1265044500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is from the FCC, not a particular politician.  The FCC has a lot of stick-to-it-ive-ness compared to other agencies.</p><p>If history is any indication, 100 years from now our children's children will still be paying a 100 / 100 fee to the telcos, and enjoying the benefits of 10 Mbps broadband.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is from the FCC , not a particular politician .
The FCC has a lot of stick-to-it-ive-ness compared to other agencies.If history is any indication , 100 years from now our children 's children will still be paying a 100 / 100 fee to the telcos , and enjoying the benefits of 10 Mbps broadband .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is from the FCC, not a particular politician.
The FCC has a lot of stick-to-it-ive-ness compared to other agencies.If history is any indication, 100 years from now our children's children will still be paying a 100 / 100 fee to the telcos, and enjoying the benefits of 10 Mbps broadband.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171626</id>
	<title>Re:DigiTechGuy</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1265047860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You must be new here.</p><p>The Constitution grants the Federal Government the right to pass laws to deal with some things not specifically addressed in the Constitution, and the States rights to deal with others.</p><p>Given that radio waves, much less fiber optic internet, had not yet been discovered in 1787, this is a very clear case in which one needs not simply heed the Constitution, but all of the law built on top of it since.</p><p>You may now return to drinking that teabagger kool-aid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You must be new here.The Constitution grants the Federal Government the right to pass laws to deal with some things not specifically addressed in the Constitution , and the States rights to deal with others.Given that radio waves , much less fiber optic internet , had not yet been discovered in 1787 , this is a very clear case in which one needs not simply heed the Constitution , but all of the law built on top of it since.You may now return to drinking that teabagger kool-aid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must be new here.The Constitution grants the Federal Government the right to pass laws to deal with some things not specifically addressed in the Constitution, and the States rights to deal with others.Given that radio waves, much less fiber optic internet, had not yet been discovered in 1787, this is a very clear case in which one needs not simply heed the Constitution, but all of the law built on top of it since.You may now return to drinking that teabagger kool-aid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171670</id>
	<title>Re:That would be all well and good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265047980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It may be easier to ask for forgiveness than permission in this case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It may be easier to ask for forgiveness than permission in this case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may be easier to ask for forgiveness than permission in this case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31174378</id>
	<title>Re:cap</title>
	<author>Fastfwd</author>
	<datestamp>1265056500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>2GB cap? I guess you won't be renting movies over the Internet anytime soon; not more than one/month anyway. And go easy on that youtube.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>2GB cap ?
I guess you wo n't be renting movies over the Internet anytime soon ; not more than one/month anyway .
And go easy on that youtube .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2GB cap?
I guess you won't be renting movies over the Internet anytime soon; not more than one/month anyway.
And go easy on that youtube.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169916</id>
	<title>Re:We're going to MARS!</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1265042400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Politicians making big promises and then failing to deliver?!?!? Well, there goes my faith in those guys.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Politicians making big promises and then failing to deliver ? ! ? ! ?
Well , there goes my faith in those guys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Politicians making big promises and then failing to deliver?!?!?
Well, there goes my faith in those guys.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169894</id>
	<title>cap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265042340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmmm.  100 megabits/sec.  At that rate, my 2 gig cap would be reached in</p><p>2000 megabytes * 8 bits/byte / 100 megabits per sec = 160 seconds aka 2 minutes 40 seconds</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm .
100 megabits/sec .
At that rate , my 2 gig cap would be reached in2000 megabytes * 8 bits/byte / 100 megabits per sec = 160 seconds aka 2 minutes 40 seconds</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm.
100 megabits/sec.
At that rate, my 2 gig cap would be reached in2000 megabytes * 8 bits/byte / 100 megabits per sec = 160 seconds aka 2 minutes 40 seconds</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171972</id>
	<title>Market forces, my @ss</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265048820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Arguments that the government should not mandate higher bandwidth, or anything else for that matter, and should be left to market forces are all well and good.  The problem is that 'market forces' is an economic term of art which is a just a fill in the blank phrase which is the same as saying  'let's see what happens'.  It does not guarantee that you get the desired result.  The market will settle at some equilibrium where prices will be relatively stable and people will be able to pay a certain amount of money for a certain amount of product/service and companies will make a certain amount of profit.</p><p>So, you can look at this any number of ways, but here are a few:<br>1) We are at the equilibrium point today (ignoring that there is already government intervention creating mini-quasi-monopolies.) You are not going to get any more bandwidth except through small incremental increases.  The market forces have spoken.  Happy now?<br>2) Now let's not ignore the current government intervention.  Those mini-quasi-monopolies exist.  Exactly why do they exist?  The argument in favor is that government intervention is/was required to entice corporations to make the massive investments required to build the infrastructure to support each local market.  No company would take the investment risk without some guarantee on the ROI.  However, given the admission that market forces alone do not create the desired result, it is perfectly reasonable to entertain the idea of more government involvement to push the market towards a more consumer favorable result.<br>3) The 'pure' market forces argument would be that the current gov. regulations should be eliminated.  Restrictions on what they can charge, where they can do business, and how many players can be in each market should all be lifted, and there should be no bandwidth mandates.  This would be awesome for you if you live in a densely populated area where it makes sense for a company to operate.  Not so great for you if you live in a rural area.</p><p>In summary, "market forces", is a great argument for large corporations to make.  Because if left alone, they will naturally gravitate to maximize profits.  It is not such a great argument from a consumers point of view because maximizing corporate profits does not equate to better services.  If we were talking about luxury yachts or fur coats that is no big deal.  But when we are talking about a core communications services, it might not be such a good idea to just say "lets see what happens".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Arguments that the government should not mandate higher bandwidth , or anything else for that matter , and should be left to market forces are all well and good .
The problem is that 'market forces ' is an economic term of art which is a just a fill in the blank phrase which is the same as saying 'let 's see what happens' .
It does not guarantee that you get the desired result .
The market will settle at some equilibrium where prices will be relatively stable and people will be able to pay a certain amount of money for a certain amount of product/service and companies will make a certain amount of profit.So , you can look at this any number of ways , but here are a few : 1 ) We are at the equilibrium point today ( ignoring that there is already government intervention creating mini-quasi-monopolies .
) You are not going to get any more bandwidth except through small incremental increases .
The market forces have spoken .
Happy now ? 2 ) Now let 's not ignore the current government intervention .
Those mini-quasi-monopolies exist .
Exactly why do they exist ?
The argument in favor is that government intervention is/was required to entice corporations to make the massive investments required to build the infrastructure to support each local market .
No company would take the investment risk without some guarantee on the ROI .
However , given the admission that market forces alone do not create the desired result , it is perfectly reasonable to entertain the idea of more government involvement to push the market towards a more consumer favorable result.3 ) The 'pure ' market forces argument would be that the current gov .
regulations should be eliminated .
Restrictions on what they can charge , where they can do business , and how many players can be in each market should all be lifted , and there should be no bandwidth mandates .
This would be awesome for you if you live in a densely populated area where it makes sense for a company to operate .
Not so great for you if you live in a rural area.In summary , " market forces " , is a great argument for large corporations to make .
Because if left alone , they will naturally gravitate to maximize profits .
It is not such a great argument from a consumers point of view because maximizing corporate profits does not equate to better services .
If we were talking about luxury yachts or fur coats that is no big deal .
But when we are talking about a core communications services , it might not be such a good idea to just say " lets see what happens " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Arguments that the government should not mandate higher bandwidth, or anything else for that matter, and should be left to market forces are all well and good.
The problem is that 'market forces' is an economic term of art which is a just a fill in the blank phrase which is the same as saying  'let's see what happens'.
It does not guarantee that you get the desired result.
The market will settle at some equilibrium where prices will be relatively stable and people will be able to pay a certain amount of money for a certain amount of product/service and companies will make a certain amount of profit.So, you can look at this any number of ways, but here are a few:1) We are at the equilibrium point today (ignoring that there is already government intervention creating mini-quasi-monopolies.
) You are not going to get any more bandwidth except through small incremental increases.
The market forces have spoken.
Happy now?2) Now let's not ignore the current government intervention.
Those mini-quasi-monopolies exist.
Exactly why do they exist?
The argument in favor is that government intervention is/was required to entice corporations to make the massive investments required to build the infrastructure to support each local market.
No company would take the investment risk without some guarantee on the ROI.
However, given the admission that market forces alone do not create the desired result, it is perfectly reasonable to entertain the idea of more government involvement to push the market towards a more consumer favorable result.3) The 'pure' market forces argument would be that the current gov.
regulations should be eliminated.
Restrictions on what they can charge, where they can do business, and how many players can be in each market should all be lifted, and there should be no bandwidth mandates.
This would be awesome for you if you live in a densely populated area where it makes sense for a company to operate.
Not so great for you if you live in a rural area.In summary, "market forces", is a great argument for large corporations to make.
Because if left alone, they will naturally gravitate to maximize profits.
It is not such a great argument from a consumers point of view because maximizing corporate profits does not equate to better services.
If we were talking about luxury yachts or fur coats that is no big deal.
But when we are talking about a core communications services, it might not be such a good idea to just say "lets see what happens".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31186496</id>
	<title>Re:We're going to MARS!</title>
	<author>Areyoukiddingme</author>
	<datestamp>1266516540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Who'll give me Vegas odds on these?</p></div></blockquote><p>Not me.  That's a sucker bet.</p><p>I could quit my job and spend the next 5 years trying to organize a co-op to install fiber to the home and get... precisely nowhere.  Ma Bell and Charter would get together and crush me, and I wouldn't even know why the local municipalities were refusing to meet with me or amend their laws.  I'd be on the outside, looking in.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who 'll give me Vegas odds on these ? Not me .
That 's a sucker bet.I could quit my job and spend the next 5 years trying to organize a co-op to install fiber to the home and get... precisely nowhere .
Ma Bell and Charter would get together and crush me , and I would n't even know why the local municipalities were refusing to meet with me or amend their laws .
I 'd be on the outside , looking in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who'll give me Vegas odds on these?Not me.
That's a sucker bet.I could quit my job and spend the next 5 years trying to organize a co-op to install fiber to the home and get... precisely nowhere.
Ma Bell and Charter would get together and crush me, and I wouldn't even know why the local municipalities were refusing to meet with me or amend their laws.
I'd be on the outside, looking in.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169548</id>
	<title>Good start</title>
	<author>smooth wombat</author>
	<datestamp>1265041260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now if only they could force companies to unbundle their services and keep the cost proportional to the service.  By that I mean, if they bundle tv, phone and internet for $99/month, they can offer each service for $33/month.</p><p>Which is not the case at the moment.  I cannot get internet service from either Verizon or Comcast (my only two providers) for $33/month at the same speed as they offer for their bundled service.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now if only they could force companies to unbundle their services and keep the cost proportional to the service .
By that I mean , if they bundle tv , phone and internet for $ 99/month , they can offer each service for $ 33/month.Which is not the case at the moment .
I can not get internet service from either Verizon or Comcast ( my only two providers ) for $ 33/month at the same speed as they offer for their bundled service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now if only they could force companies to unbundle their services and keep the cost proportional to the service.
By that I mean, if they bundle tv, phone and internet for $99/month, they can offer each service for $33/month.Which is not the case at the moment.
I cannot get internet service from either Verizon or Comcast (my only two providers) for $33/month at the same speed as they offer for their bundled service.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169732</id>
	<title>Re:That would be all well and good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265041800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Market Forces"  you mean let the ISPs charge whatever they want for poor service and very poor speed and uptime?  Market forces only work when there is competition, in my area I got once choice. Besides how long does one have to live in this "Market Economy" to realize that big corps will do whatever they can to make a dollar. It is in their best interest to not upgrade their networks and charge out the nose.  Change on this magnitude will only come to the masses if the government mandates it, its always been like that it always will.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Market Forces " you mean let the ISPs charge whatever they want for poor service and very poor speed and uptime ?
Market forces only work when there is competition , in my area I got once choice .
Besides how long does one have to live in this " Market Economy " to realize that big corps will do whatever they can to make a dollar .
It is in their best interest to not upgrade their networks and charge out the nose .
Change on this magnitude will only come to the masses if the government mandates it , its always been like that it always will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Market Forces"  you mean let the ISPs charge whatever they want for poor service and very poor speed and uptime?
Market forces only work when there is competition, in my area I got once choice.
Besides how long does one have to live in this "Market Economy" to realize that big corps will do whatever they can to make a dollar.
It is in their best interest to not upgrade their networks and charge out the nose.
Change on this magnitude will only come to the masses if the government mandates it, its always been like that it always will.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171394</id>
	<title>Re:That would be all well and good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265047140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dig a cable? 500 yards? All you need is two decent antenna's an some accompanying wifi equipment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dig a cable ?
500 yards ?
All you need is two decent antenna 's an some accompanying wifi equipment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dig a cable?
500 yards?
All you need is two decent antenna's an some accompanying wifi equipment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31174226</id>
	<title>Re:This should have been done years ago</title>
	<author>DJoffe</author>
	<datestamp>1265055960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The failure to mandate that broadband is at least 100 mbps places the US way behind other countries<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... That is why Japanese who come to the US</p></div><p>Japan didn't get so far ahead by "mandating" broadband speeds; they did it primarily by liberalising the market. The primary obstacle in the US is lack of real competition, and this is what both state and federal governments should focus on. In Japan, the true cost is also hidden from consumers thanks to a.o. forced subsidisation from taxpayers (taxpayers are <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8068560.stm" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">subsidising FTTH</a> [bbc.co.uk] by about 33\%).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The failure to mandate that broadband is at least 100 mbps places the US way behind other countries ... That is why Japanese who come to the USJapan did n't get so far ahead by " mandating " broadband speeds ; they did it primarily by liberalising the market .
The primary obstacle in the US is lack of real competition , and this is what both state and federal governments should focus on .
In Japan , the true cost is also hidden from consumers thanks to a.o .
forced subsidisation from taxpayers ( taxpayers are subsidising FTTH [ bbc.co.uk ] by about 33 \ % ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The failure to mandate that broadband is at least 100 mbps places the US way behind other countries ... That is why Japanese who come to the USJapan didn't get so far ahead by "mandating" broadband speeds; they did it primarily by liberalising the market.
The primary obstacle in the US is lack of real competition, and this is what both state and federal governments should focus on.
In Japan, the true cost is also hidden from consumers thanks to a.o.
forced subsidisation from taxpayers (taxpayers are subsidising FTTH [bbc.co.uk] by about 33\%).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170098</id>
	<title>This should have been done years ago</title>
	<author>grandpa-geek</author>
	<datestamp>1265043000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IEEE-USA has been advocating bi-directional gigabit broadband for several years.  The telcos have offered dumbed-down, legacy speeds because they are trying to become more closely associated with the entertainment industry than with telecommunications.  The entertainment and other content industries do not want the competition that comes when every subscriber can become an originator.</p><p>The failure to mandate that broadband is at least 100 mbps places the US way behind other countries and makes our innovators much less able to develop new concepts in broadband-based applications.  That is why Japanese who come to the US are said to feel like they are entering a telecommunications third world.</p><p>The FCC is moving to have the US join the developed telecommunications world.</p><p>Good!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IEEE-USA has been advocating bi-directional gigabit broadband for several years .
The telcos have offered dumbed-down , legacy speeds because they are trying to become more closely associated with the entertainment industry than with telecommunications .
The entertainment and other content industries do not want the competition that comes when every subscriber can become an originator.The failure to mandate that broadband is at least 100 mbps places the US way behind other countries and makes our innovators much less able to develop new concepts in broadband-based applications .
That is why Japanese who come to the US are said to feel like they are entering a telecommunications third world.The FCC is moving to have the US join the developed telecommunications world.Good ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IEEE-USA has been advocating bi-directional gigabit broadband for several years.
The telcos have offered dumbed-down, legacy speeds because they are trying to become more closely associated with the entertainment industry than with telecommunications.
The entertainment and other content industries do not want the competition that comes when every subscriber can become an originator.The failure to mandate that broadband is at least 100 mbps places the US way behind other countries and makes our innovators much less able to develop new concepts in broadband-based applications.
That is why Japanese who come to the US are said to feel like they are entering a telecommunications third world.The FCC is moving to have the US join the developed telecommunications world.Good!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170004</id>
	<title>Re:Already there</title>
	<author>Krneki</author>
	<datestamp>1265042700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>20/20 for 26E a month here.
My city has 10.000 inhabitants, so you don't need a huge population to make it profitable.
The only reason I can see to not have optic lines in cities above 10.000 people is political laziness.</htmltext>
<tokenext>20/20 for 26E a month here .
My city has 10.000 inhabitants , so you do n't need a huge population to make it profitable .
The only reason I can see to not have optic lines in cities above 10.000 people is political laziness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>20/20 for 26E a month here.
My city has 10.000 inhabitants, so you don't need a huge population to make it profitable.
The only reason I can see to not have optic lines in cities above 10.000 people is political laziness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170672</id>
	<title>Reactions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265045100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The government says: "Provide 100Mbps for home broadband service.  Seriously, guys.  Cut this shit out."</p><p>The telcos and ISPs say: "ZOMG NOOOOO there is no way we can do that now give us another $200b like bak in teh 90s plz kthx"</p><p>Google says: "Look, shut UP already!  We're working on it!  Just give us more fiber lines already!  Geez!"</p><p>Regular customers say: "YAAAAAAY!  Now I can download my E-Mails and my internet faster!  That'll make my computer crash less!"</p><p>Slashdot says: "But that won't even let me download HALF my hentai and anime torrents in a single day!  What is WRONG with you?  <i>Priorities</i>, people!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The government says : " Provide 100Mbps for home broadband service .
Seriously , guys .
Cut this shit out .
" The telcos and ISPs say : " ZOMG NOOOOO there is no way we can do that now give us another $ 200b like bak in teh 90s plz kthx " Google says : " Look , shut UP already !
We 're working on it !
Just give us more fiber lines already !
Geez ! " Regular customers say : " YAAAAAAY !
Now I can download my E-Mails and my internet faster !
That 'll make my computer crash less !
" Slashdot says : " But that wo n't even let me download HALF my hentai and anime torrents in a single day !
What is WRONG with you ?
Priorities , people !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government says: "Provide 100Mbps for home broadband service.
Seriously, guys.
Cut this shit out.
"The telcos and ISPs say: "ZOMG NOOOOO there is no way we can do that now give us another $200b like bak in teh 90s plz kthx"Google says: "Look, shut UP already!
We're working on it!
Just give us more fiber lines already!
Geez!"Regular customers say: "YAAAAAAY!
Now I can download my E-Mails and my internet faster!
That'll make my computer crash less!
"Slashdot says: "But that won't even let me download HALF my hentai and anime torrents in a single day!
What is WRONG with you?
Priorities, people!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171668</id>
	<title>Re:Already there</title>
	<author>StuartHankins</author>
	<datestamp>1265047980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I read you correctly, that's 20Mbps up and down (symmetric speeds) for 26 Euros... approx $36. Wow we're getting shafted here in the US.
<br> <br>
In Palm Beach, Florida (a reasonably modern metro area) it's approx $53 a month (plus a whole bunch of extra fees and taxes) for Comcast for "up to" 16/2, which is really something like 5/1 (their site does not display the actual speeds, and uses some tech to speed up the first 10-20 MB so they claim very high speeds). They also have mandatory installation and setup charges if you aren't a current customer (I get my TV service included through the homeowner's association).
<br> <br>
BellSouth is not any better.
<br> <br>
My experience with both has been dismal. Both tend to oversubscribe, so you only get a fraction available. If I'm paying for 6 Mb/s, I should be able to (theoretically) open a bunch of sites and download somewhere near 6 Mb/s total. Doesn't happen with either Comcast or BellSouth. And what's worst is they throttle you if you stream video or use BitTorrent for extended periods.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I read you correctly , that 's 20Mbps up and down ( symmetric speeds ) for 26 Euros... approx $ 36 .
Wow we 're getting shafted here in the US .
In Palm Beach , Florida ( a reasonably modern metro area ) it 's approx $ 53 a month ( plus a whole bunch of extra fees and taxes ) for Comcast for " up to " 16/2 , which is really something like 5/1 ( their site does not display the actual speeds , and uses some tech to speed up the first 10-20 MB so they claim very high speeds ) .
They also have mandatory installation and setup charges if you are n't a current customer ( I get my TV service included through the homeowner 's association ) .
BellSouth is not any better .
My experience with both has been dismal .
Both tend to oversubscribe , so you only get a fraction available .
If I 'm paying for 6 Mb/s , I should be able to ( theoretically ) open a bunch of sites and download somewhere near 6 Mb/s total .
Does n't happen with either Comcast or BellSouth .
And what 's worst is they throttle you if you stream video or use BitTorrent for extended periods .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I read you correctly, that's 20Mbps up and down (symmetric speeds) for 26 Euros... approx $36.
Wow we're getting shafted here in the US.
In Palm Beach, Florida (a reasonably modern metro area) it's approx $53 a month (plus a whole bunch of extra fees and taxes) for Comcast for "up to" 16/2, which is really something like 5/1 (their site does not display the actual speeds, and uses some tech to speed up the first 10-20 MB so they claim very high speeds).
They also have mandatory installation and setup charges if you aren't a current customer (I get my TV service included through the homeowner's association).
BellSouth is not any better.
My experience with both has been dismal.
Both tend to oversubscribe, so you only get a fraction available.
If I'm paying for 6 Mb/s, I should be able to (theoretically) open a bunch of sites and download somewhere near 6 Mb/s total.
Doesn't happen with either Comcast or BellSouth.
And what's worst is they throttle you if you stream video or use BitTorrent for extended periods.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31173416</id>
	<title>Re:We're going to MARS!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265053260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does 100Mbps in 10 years sound like an ambitious project to you? 10 years ago there was still DejaNews, a "huge" hard disk stored less than 100GB, the Pentium 4 was hot and in Germany, the first (and for a long time only) broadband product for home users had just started with a regional test, offering a maximum of 768kbps downstream. If 100Mbps isn't entry-level in 10 years, I'm going to be seriously disappointed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does 100Mbps in 10 years sound like an ambitious project to you ?
10 years ago there was still DejaNews , a " huge " hard disk stored less than 100GB , the Pentium 4 was hot and in Germany , the first ( and for a long time only ) broadband product for home users had just started with a regional test , offering a maximum of 768kbps downstream .
If 100Mbps is n't entry-level in 10 years , I 'm going to be seriously disappointed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does 100Mbps in 10 years sound like an ambitious project to you?
10 years ago there was still DejaNews, a "huge" hard disk stored less than 100GB, the Pentium 4 was hot and in Germany, the first (and for a long time only) broadband product for home users had just started with a regional test, offering a maximum of 768kbps downstream.
If 100Mbps isn't entry-level in 10 years, I'm going to be seriously disappointed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169620</id>
	<title>Transfer limits, not speed!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265041500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pretty soon, we'll have 1Gbps connections to-the-home with 1GB monthly transfer limits. I can't wait. I'll be able to transfer my monthly quota in mere hours now!<br>Speeds doesn't matter one god damn when usage is so restricted. Telcos and Commcos win again!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty soon , we 'll have 1Gbps connections to-the-home with 1GB monthly transfer limits .
I ca n't wait .
I 'll be able to transfer my monthly quota in mere hours now ! Speeds does n't matter one god damn when usage is so restricted .
Telcos and Commcos win again !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty soon, we'll have 1Gbps connections to-the-home with 1GB monthly transfer limits.
I can't wait.
I'll be able to transfer my monthly quota in mere hours now!Speeds doesn't matter one god damn when usage is so restricted.
Telcos and Commcos win again!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171006</id>
	<title>Linear vs Exponential growth</title>
	<author>TibbonZero</author>
	<datestamp>1265046120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ten years ago I had a 1.5mb cable modem from Comcast (actually I think I got my first cable line in 1998). <br>
Today I have a 20mb cable modem from RCN (which costs nearly 2x as much as the 1.5mb line I used to have). <br>
Each of these were the fastest consumer lines available to me. <br>
100mb in 10 years sounds rather unambitious really. Consumer usage (I'm assuming) is probably growing at a rate akin to Moore's Law. There would be 6 and 2/3 cycles of Moore's Law in 10 years. My 20mb line should turn into a 1300mb line in 10 years at this rate and consumer usage will probably meet the demands. <br>Unfortunately by this logic I should have a 96mb line available already, which isn't true at least where I live</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ten years ago I had a 1.5mb cable modem from Comcast ( actually I think I got my first cable line in 1998 ) .
Today I have a 20mb cable modem from RCN ( which costs nearly 2x as much as the 1.5mb line I used to have ) .
Each of these were the fastest consumer lines available to me .
100mb in 10 years sounds rather unambitious really .
Consumer usage ( I 'm assuming ) is probably growing at a rate akin to Moore 's Law .
There would be 6 and 2/3 cycles of Moore 's Law in 10 years .
My 20mb line should turn into a 1300mb line in 10 years at this rate and consumer usage will probably meet the demands .
Unfortunately by this logic I should have a 96mb line available already , which is n't true at least where I live</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ten years ago I had a 1.5mb cable modem from Comcast (actually I think I got my first cable line in 1998).
Today I have a 20mb cable modem from RCN (which costs nearly 2x as much as the 1.5mb line I used to have).
Each of these were the fastest consumer lines available to me.
100mb in 10 years sounds rather unambitious really.
Consumer usage (I'm assuming) is probably growing at a rate akin to Moore's Law.
There would be 6 and 2/3 cycles of Moore's Law in 10 years.
My 20mb line should turn into a 1300mb line in 10 years at this rate and consumer usage will probably meet the demands.
Unfortunately by this logic I should have a 96mb line available already, which isn't true at least where I live</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170286</id>
	<title>Re:Already there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265043660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>100/10 Mbit @ 320 SEK/month (~&euro;32 or ~$43 US). But there exists 100/100 Mbit @ 55 SEK/month (42 SEK if you're a student). Damn vendor lock in =P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>100/10 Mbit @ 320 SEK/month ( ~    32 or ~ $ 43 US ) .
But there exists 100/100 Mbit @ 55 SEK/month ( 42 SEK if you 're a student ) .
Damn vendor lock in = P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>100/10 Mbit @ 320 SEK/month (~€32 or ~$43 US).
But there exists 100/100 Mbit @ 55 SEK/month (42 SEK if you're a student).
Damn vendor lock in =P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169990</id>
	<title>US falls further and further behind</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265042640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>100MBps in 10 years ???</p><p>LOL!!!!</p><p>By then Japan and South Korea will be at 2,000GBps!!!</p><p>I lived in Japan for 16 years. Back in 2006, I had 100Bps FTTH for $79.</p><p>The US is falling further and further behind.</p><p>Soon, we will have to travel to Cuba to get fast internet<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... just like proper and cheap health care.</p><p>Carlitto</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>100MBps in 10 years ? ? ? LOL ! ! !
! By then Japan and South Korea will be at 2,000GBps ! !
! I lived in Japan for 16 years .
Back in 2006 , I had 100Bps FTTH for $ 79.The US is falling further and further behind.Soon , we will have to travel to Cuba to get fast internet ... just like proper and cheap health care.Carlitto</tokentext>
<sentencetext>100MBps in 10 years ???LOL!!!
!By then Japan and South Korea will be at 2,000GBps!!
!I lived in Japan for 16 years.
Back in 2006, I had 100Bps FTTH for $79.The US is falling further and further behind.Soon, we will have to travel to Cuba to get fast internet ... just like proper and cheap health care.Carlitto</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171096</id>
	<title>Re:This should have been done years ago</title>
	<author>FrankieBaby1986</author>
	<datestamp>1265046360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...because they are trying to become more closely associated with the entertainment industry than with telecommunications.  The entertainment and other content industries do not want the competition that comes when every subscriber can become an originator.</p></div><p>So true, as if there isn't enough bandwidth on the cable lines that are carrying 150 SD and 30 HD channels all at once.</p><p>The infrastructure is already there and the technology is a stone's throw away. They just don't <em>want</em> to deliver internet over it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...because they are trying to become more closely associated with the entertainment industry than with telecommunications .
The entertainment and other content industries do not want the competition that comes when every subscriber can become an originator.So true , as if there is n't enough bandwidth on the cable lines that are carrying 150 SD and 30 HD channels all at once.The infrastructure is already there and the technology is a stone 's throw away .
They just do n't want to deliver internet over it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...because they are trying to become more closely associated with the entertainment industry than with telecommunications.
The entertainment and other content industries do not want the competition that comes when every subscriber can become an originator.So true, as if there isn't enough bandwidth on the cable lines that are carrying 150 SD and 30 HD channels all at once.The infrastructure is already there and the technology is a stone's throw away.
They just don't want to deliver internet over it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169958</id>
	<title>If you require it, it will come... right?</title>
	<author>Gothmolly</author>
	<datestamp>1265042580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just think, if we passed laws against stealing and killing, then nobody would steal or kill right?  I thought Congress was given power to regulate trade between the States, not REQUIRE trade between the States.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just think , if we passed laws against stealing and killing , then nobody would steal or kill right ?
I thought Congress was given power to regulate trade between the States , not REQUIRE trade between the States .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just think, if we passed laws against stealing and killing, then nobody would steal or kill right?
I thought Congress was given power to regulate trade between the States, not REQUIRE trade between the States.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170968</id>
	<title>100 megabits unrealistic, eh? We already have that</title>
	<author>xiando</author>
	<datestamp>1265046000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I live in Sweden. The apartment building I live in got fiber to the basement last year. There are standard cat6 Ethernet cables going from there to every apartment. 10mbit is affordable, 100mbit is very expensive right now, but still.. if you are willing to pay $110/month for a 100mbit Internet connection then you can have that. If 100 megabits 10 years from now is unrealistic in the US then I feel sorry for those who live there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in Sweden .
The apartment building I live in got fiber to the basement last year .
There are standard cat6 Ethernet cables going from there to every apartment .
10mbit is affordable , 100mbit is very expensive right now , but still.. if you are willing to pay $ 110/month for a 100mbit Internet connection then you can have that .
If 100 megabits 10 years from now is unrealistic in the US then I feel sorry for those who live there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in Sweden.
The apartment building I live in got fiber to the basement last year.
There are standard cat6 Ethernet cables going from there to every apartment.
10mbit is affordable, 100mbit is very expensive right now, but still.. if you are willing to pay $110/month for a 100mbit Internet connection then you can have that.
If 100 megabits 10 years from now is unrealistic in the US then I feel sorry for those who live there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31200192</id>
	<title>Re:That would be all well and good</title>
	<author>jon3k</author>
	<datestamp>1266599460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's against the terms of service of basically every ISP to share the connection via wireless.  Yes, you could probably get away with it.  Just pointing it out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's against the terms of service of basically every ISP to share the connection via wireless .
Yes , you could probably get away with it .
Just pointing it out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's against the terms of service of basically every ISP to share the connection via wireless.
Yes, you could probably get away with it.
Just pointing it out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31178930</id>
	<title>Re:100 megabits unrealistic, eh? We already have t</title>
	<author>butlerm</author>
	<datestamp>1265033220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Individual homes are far more expensive to wire new connections to than units in apartments.  And in most parts of the United States, apartments are the exception, not the rule, and houses tend to be spread out far from city centers as well. It makes non-government mandated universal service a tricky business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Individual homes are far more expensive to wire new connections to than units in apartments .
And in most parts of the United States , apartments are the exception , not the rule , and houses tend to be spread out far from city centers as well .
It makes non-government mandated universal service a tricky business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Individual homes are far more expensive to wire new connections to than units in apartments.
And in most parts of the United States, apartments are the exception, not the rule, and houses tend to be spread out far from city centers as well.
It makes non-government mandated universal service a tricky business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31179602</id>
	<title>Re:100 megabits unrealistic, eh? We already have t</title>
	<author>MikeFM</author>
	<datestamp>1265038620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the US I'm paying $1000+ a month for 7Mb fiber.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the US I 'm paying $ 1000 + a month for 7Mb fiber .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the US I'm paying $1000+ a month for 7Mb fiber.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170190</id>
	<title>2020 arrives, Big Brother WILL be watching you</title>
	<author>sponglish</author>
	<datestamp>1265043360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The telescreen that made it possible for Big Brother to constantly observe the population of Oceania never seemed practical when I first read the book back in 1975. How could you have that much bandwidth available for so many two-way video links, and who could possibly monitor all of them 24/7?</p><p>But now we've got computers for emotion, face, and voice recognition, so all you'd need is a few hundred techs to work the Automated Crisis Avoidance Machines run by the Department of Mental Health (soon to be a Cabinet-level position) and we could make sure everybody loves Big Brother, even in the "privacy" of their own homes.</p><p>If we only had the bandwidth...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The telescreen that made it possible for Big Brother to constantly observe the population of Oceania never seemed practical when I first read the book back in 1975 .
How could you have that much bandwidth available for so many two-way video links , and who could possibly monitor all of them 24/7 ? But now we 've got computers for emotion , face , and voice recognition , so all you 'd need is a few hundred techs to work the Automated Crisis Avoidance Machines run by the Department of Mental Health ( soon to be a Cabinet-level position ) and we could make sure everybody loves Big Brother , even in the " privacy " of their own homes.If we only had the bandwidth.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The telescreen that made it possible for Big Brother to constantly observe the population of Oceania never seemed practical when I first read the book back in 1975.
How could you have that much bandwidth available for so many two-way video links, and who could possibly monitor all of them 24/7?But now we've got computers for emotion, face, and voice recognition, so all you'd need is a few hundred techs to work the Automated Crisis Avoidance Machines run by the Department of Mental Health (soon to be a Cabinet-level position) and we could make sure everybody loves Big Brother, even in the "privacy" of their own homes.If we only had the bandwidth...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171276</id>
	<title>what's the point...</title>
	<author>xushi</author>
	<datestamp>1265046840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's the bloody point of having anything over 512k/sec with those ridiculous monthly caps in downloads.....</p><p>And what's with this redicu</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the bloody point of having anything over 512k/sec with those ridiculous monthly caps in downloads.....And what 's with this redicu</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the bloody point of having anything over 512k/sec with those ridiculous monthly caps in downloads.....And what's with this redicu</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31174254</id>
	<title>Unrealistic? How about unmotivated.</title>
	<author>zefrey</author>
	<datestamp>1265056080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://ilovekoreangirls.wordpress.com/2009/07/17/internet-speed-in-south-korea/" title="wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">http://ilovekoreangirls.wordpress.com/2009/07/17/internet-speed-in-south-korea/</a> [wordpress.com]

Um. Yeah. ?! We here in the U.S.A. are so far behind...everyone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //ilovekoreangirls.wordpress.com/2009/07/17/internet-speed-in-south-korea/ [ wordpress.com ] Um .
Yeah. ? !
We here in the U.S.A. are so far behind...everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://ilovekoreangirls.wordpress.com/2009/07/17/internet-speed-in-south-korea/ [wordpress.com]

Um.
Yeah. ?!
We here in the U.S.A. are so far behind...everyone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171020</id>
	<title>Re:That would be all well and good</title>
	<author>Rhys</author>
	<datestamp>1265046120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rent a room of his house and setup a point-to-point wireless link. Heck rent a closet. Nothing says you have to have the cable itself reach you -- you just want the tcp/ip link to reach you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rent a room of his house and setup a point-to-point wireless link .
Heck rent a closet .
Nothing says you have to have the cable itself reach you -- you just want the tcp/ip link to reach you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rent a room of his house and setup a point-to-point wireless link.
Heck rent a closet.
Nothing says you have to have the cable itself reach you -- you just want the tcp/ip link to reach you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31173510</id>
	<title>Re:Already there</title>
	<author>aaarrrgggh</author>
	<datestamp>1265053620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In many ways it is easier to do for a small community than a large city; more organizations are capable of providing service to a small community.  The problem with major telcos is that for similar effort (due to their overhead structure), they can provide service to 2-3x customers at a 30\% higher margin.</p><p>The artificial barriers to entry that prevent a local co-op, city council, or entrepreneur from pulling it off are the main problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In many ways it is easier to do for a small community than a large city ; more organizations are capable of providing service to a small community .
The problem with major telcos is that for similar effort ( due to their overhead structure ) , they can provide service to 2-3x customers at a 30 \ % higher margin.The artificial barriers to entry that prevent a local co-op , city council , or entrepreneur from pulling it off are the main problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In many ways it is easier to do for a small community than a large city; more organizations are capable of providing service to a small community.
The problem with major telcos is that for similar effort (due to their overhead structure), they can provide service to 2-3x customers at a 30\% higher margin.The artificial barriers to entry that prevent a local co-op, city council, or entrepreneur from pulling it off are the main problems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170654</id>
	<title>This.  A thousand times this.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265044980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Basically everyone with a phone in the USA has been paying an extra fee for decades now to fund rollout of broadband to rural areas.  Not only have the rural areas not gotten it, even a lot of built-up areas don't have it.  In fact, when municipalities have tried to create their own high-speed networks, the telcos have gone so far as to sue to prevent it.  Taking $200 billion to do something, then making efforts to prevent that something from even happening?  Evil.</p><p>I'd like the FCC to ask the telcos where the $200 billion went... and if the telcos want to claim things are impossible, maybe the FCC can ask them to give that $200 billion <i>back</i>, since we all know there's a company (Google) that's chomping at the bit to install super-fast FTTH.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically everyone with a phone in the USA has been paying an extra fee for decades now to fund rollout of broadband to rural areas .
Not only have the rural areas not gotten it , even a lot of built-up areas do n't have it .
In fact , when municipalities have tried to create their own high-speed networks , the telcos have gone so far as to sue to prevent it .
Taking $ 200 billion to do something , then making efforts to prevent that something from even happening ?
Evil.I 'd like the FCC to ask the telcos where the $ 200 billion went... and if the telcos want to claim things are impossible , maybe the FCC can ask them to give that $ 200 billion back , since we all know there 's a company ( Google ) that 's chomping at the bit to install super-fast FTTH .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically everyone with a phone in the USA has been paying an extra fee for decades now to fund rollout of broadband to rural areas.
Not only have the rural areas not gotten it, even a lot of built-up areas don't have it.
In fact, when municipalities have tried to create their own high-speed networks, the telcos have gone so far as to sue to prevent it.
Taking $200 billion to do something, then making efforts to prevent that something from even happening?
Evil.I'd like the FCC to ask the telcos where the $200 billion went... and if the telcos want to claim things are impossible, maybe the FCC can ask them to give that $200 billion back, since we all know there's a company (Google) that's chomping at the bit to install super-fast FTTH.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169800</id>
	<title>Not without significant infrastructure change...</title>
	<author>Logical Zebra</author>
	<datestamp>1265042040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>100 Mbps?  Does the FCC not realize that 99\% of all residences only have copper cabling to them (either twisted pair or coax)?  It is impossible to get 100 Mbps out of such a transmission medium over any meaningful distance.  The only solution to this would be to overbuild the entire telecommunications infrastructure with fiber optic cable.  Phone and Cable companies aren't going to like that--they already have billions of dollars invested in the current copper plant out there.</p><p>Is 100 Mbps feasible?  Yes.  Is it feasible by 2020?  Yes, but certainly not to everyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>100 Mbps ?
Does the FCC not realize that 99 \ % of all residences only have copper cabling to them ( either twisted pair or coax ) ?
It is impossible to get 100 Mbps out of such a transmission medium over any meaningful distance .
The only solution to this would be to overbuild the entire telecommunications infrastructure with fiber optic cable .
Phone and Cable companies are n't going to like that--they already have billions of dollars invested in the current copper plant out there.Is 100 Mbps feasible ?
Yes. Is it feasible by 2020 ?
Yes , but certainly not to everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>100 Mbps?
Does the FCC not realize that 99\% of all residences only have copper cabling to them (either twisted pair or coax)?
It is impossible to get 100 Mbps out of such a transmission medium over any meaningful distance.
The only solution to this would be to overbuild the entire telecommunications infrastructure with fiber optic cable.
Phone and Cable companies aren't going to like that--they already have billions of dollars invested in the current copper plant out there.Is 100 Mbps feasible?
Yes.  Is it feasible by 2020?
Yes, but certainly not to everyone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31173982</id>
	<title>Cable Co.s could be at 100mbps next week</title>
	<author>Radical Moderate</author>
	<datestamp>1265055180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>OK, I'm not an engineer, but from what I understand cable companies generally dedicate one analog channel to provide the 5 mbps or so that we now enjoy.  The cable is capable of carrying a couple hundred channels, so lop off the Home Shopping Network and some other cruft channels and dedicate them to data and voila, 100 Meg to your doorstep with minimal infrastructure investment.<br> <br>
If I'm blowing smoke, please educate me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , I 'm not an engineer , but from what I understand cable companies generally dedicate one analog channel to provide the 5 mbps or so that we now enjoy .
The cable is capable of carrying a couple hundred channels , so lop off the Home Shopping Network and some other cruft channels and dedicate them to data and voila , 100 Meg to your doorstep with minimal infrastructure investment .
If I 'm blowing smoke , please educate me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, I'm not an engineer, but from what I understand cable companies generally dedicate one analog channel to provide the 5 mbps or so that we now enjoy.
The cable is capable of carrying a couple hundred channels, so lop off the Home Shopping Network and some other cruft channels and dedicate them to data and voila, 100 Meg to your doorstep with minimal infrastructure investment.
If I'm blowing smoke, please educate me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170664</id>
	<title>Re:Already there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265045040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fiber to the house, and you're "out in sticks". Are you sure?  Can you see any neighbors from any point on the ground around your house?</p><p>I'm jealous.. I'm out in the sticks. Or maybe it's the boondocks, hard to tell. But I'm not talkin' Kansas or Idaho here, this is South Jersey. There's a town 3 miles West, another 5 miles to the East... not exactly the mountains of New Mexico.</p><p>I can't wired-anything to my house, unless you count POTS. POTS works pretty well here for POTS, largely because there's a DSL-capable local node across the street... I can see it from my mailbox. But no telco is willing to drop as couple of DSL boards in there (yes, it's compatible with DSL). So I'm paying $120 a month for 1.5Mb satellite, with a 500MB per day download cap.</p><p>Meanwhile, the folks who had 784kb/s DSL, then 3Mb/s DSL, then 5Mb/s cable, then 12Mb/s cable, are now getting 25Mb/s FiOS upgrades.</p><p>But my forest IS really nice in the warmer months...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fiber to the house , and you 're " out in sticks " .
Are you sure ?
Can you see any neighbors from any point on the ground around your house ? I 'm jealous.. I 'm out in the sticks .
Or maybe it 's the boondocks , hard to tell .
But I 'm not talkin ' Kansas or Idaho here , this is South Jersey .
There 's a town 3 miles West , another 5 miles to the East... not exactly the mountains of New Mexico.I ca n't wired-anything to my house , unless you count POTS .
POTS works pretty well here for POTS , largely because there 's a DSL-capable local node across the street... I can see it from my mailbox .
But no telco is willing to drop as couple of DSL boards in there ( yes , it 's compatible with DSL ) .
So I 'm paying $ 120 a month for 1.5Mb satellite , with a 500MB per day download cap.Meanwhile , the folks who had 784kb/s DSL , then 3Mb/s DSL , then 5Mb/s cable , then 12Mb/s cable , are now getting 25Mb/s FiOS upgrades.But my forest IS really nice in the warmer months.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fiber to the house, and you're "out in sticks".
Are you sure?
Can you see any neighbors from any point on the ground around your house?I'm jealous.. I'm out in the sticks.
Or maybe it's the boondocks, hard to tell.
But I'm not talkin' Kansas or Idaho here, this is South Jersey.
There's a town 3 miles West, another 5 miles to the East... not exactly the mountains of New Mexico.I can't wired-anything to my house, unless you count POTS.
POTS works pretty well here for POTS, largely because there's a DSL-capable local node across the street... I can see it from my mailbox.
But no telco is willing to drop as couple of DSL boards in there (yes, it's compatible with DSL).
So I'm paying $120 a month for 1.5Mb satellite, with a 500MB per day download cap.Meanwhile, the folks who had 784kb/s DSL, then 3Mb/s DSL, then 5Mb/s cable, then 12Mb/s cable, are now getting 25Mb/s FiOS upgrades.But my forest IS really nice in the warmer months...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31175572</id>
	<title>Re:DigiTechGuy</title>
	<author>bmk67</author>
	<datestamp>1265017380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Constitution grants the Federal Government the right to pass laws to deal with some things not specifically addressed in the Constitution</p></div><p>So, in reality, what you're saying is that the Constitution provides for no limits whatsoever on Federal power.</p><p>I don't think so, Dave.</p><p>Which "some things" are you referring to, and which clauses enable them?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Constitution grants the Federal Government the right to pass laws to deal with some things not specifically addressed in the ConstitutionSo , in reality , what you 're saying is that the Constitution provides for no limits whatsoever on Federal power.I do n't think so , Dave.Which " some things " are you referring to , and which clauses enable them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Constitution grants the Federal Government the right to pass laws to deal with some things not specifically addressed in the ConstitutionSo, in reality, what you're saying is that the Constitution provides for no limits whatsoever on Federal power.I don't think so, Dave.Which "some things" are you referring to, and which clauses enable them?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170926</id>
	<title>"unrealistic?"</title>
	<author>genghisjahn</author>
	<datestamp>1265045880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's what the auto-industry said about the catalytic converter (too expensive, too hard to change over, will ruin competition).  As a rule, I don't like government meddling in these types of things, but it's obvious we're not doing the internet thing right when we look at the rest of the world.  It's amazing what you can do when you HAVE to.  This goes for companies too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what the auto-industry said about the catalytic converter ( too expensive , too hard to change over , will ruin competition ) .
As a rule , I do n't like government meddling in these types of things , but it 's obvious we 're not doing the internet thing right when we look at the rest of the world .
It 's amazing what you can do when you HAVE to .
This goes for companies too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what the auto-industry said about the catalytic converter (too expensive, too hard to change over, will ruin competition).
As a rule, I don't like government meddling in these types of things, but it's obvious we're not doing the internet thing right when we look at the rest of the world.
It's amazing what you can do when you HAVE to.
This goes for companies too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170346</id>
	<title>Re:DigiTechGuy</title>
	<author>jedidiah</author>
	<datestamp>1265043900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Umm... Where in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government to do this?</p><p>The ICC of course. The fact that all of the major players are engaging in activities across state boarders makes it a pretty obvious fit. You don't even have to bend it out of shape too much.</p><p>Where am I? Where is this thing called Slashdot?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Umm... Where in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government to do this ? The ICC of course .
The fact that all of the major players are engaging in activities across state boarders makes it a pretty obvious fit .
You do n't even have to bend it out of shape too much.Where am I ?
Where is this thing called Slashdot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Umm... Where in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government to do this?The ICC of course.
The fact that all of the major players are engaging in activities across state boarders makes it a pretty obvious fit.
You don't even have to bend it out of shape too much.Where am I?
Where is this thing called Slashdot?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170062</id>
	<title>Excuse me...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265042820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but why exactly is the FCC telling companies what to do, or for that matter what we want? Perhaps this is why we have a 12 trillion deficit. Its not the FCC's job to make sure we all have internet. It's their job to make sure the internet we do have is fair. This is just another piece of job security masquerading as good intentions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but why exactly is the FCC telling companies what to do , or for that matter what we want ?
Perhaps this is why we have a 12 trillion deficit .
Its not the FCC 's job to make sure we all have internet .
It 's their job to make sure the internet we do have is fair .
This is just another piece of job security masquerading as good intentions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but why exactly is the FCC telling companies what to do, or for that matter what we want?
Perhaps this is why we have a 12 trillion deficit.
Its not the FCC's job to make sure we all have internet.
It's their job to make sure the internet we do have is fair.
This is just another piece of job security masquerading as good intentions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169996</id>
	<title>Torrents</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265042640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>At least then there's no reason for you jerks not to seed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least then there 's no reason for you jerks not to seed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least then there's no reason for you jerks not to seed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31173922</id>
	<title>Illegal to offer me less speed?</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1265055000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So does this mean that in 2020 I won't be able to get a lower speed (for a lower price), even if I want it and don't need 100 Mbps? I guess the government knows what's best for me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So does this mean that in 2020 I wo n't be able to get a lower speed ( for a lower price ) , even if I want it and do n't need 100 Mbps ?
I guess the government knows what 's best for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So does this mean that in 2020 I won't be able to get a lower speed (for a lower price), even if I want it and don't need 100 Mbps?
I guess the government knows what's best for me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171900</id>
	<title>Re:This. A thousand times this.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265048580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep the telecom stole $200 billion and are still taking money from people that was supposed to be spent on broadband.<br>Read the report, over 400 pages showing how telecom stole and continues to steal from consumers.<br>http://www.teletruth.org/docs/broadbandscandalfree.pdf</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep the telecom stole $ 200 billion and are still taking money from people that was supposed to be spent on broadband.Read the report , over 400 pages showing how telecom stole and continues to steal from consumers.http : //www.teletruth.org/docs/broadbandscandalfree.pdf</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep the telecom stole $200 billion and are still taking money from people that was supposed to be spent on broadband.Read the report, over 400 pages showing how telecom stole and continues to steal from consumers.http://www.teletruth.org/docs/broadbandscandalfree.pdf</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171164</id>
	<title>Sounds nice, but....</title>
	<author>Rakeris</author>
	<datestamp>1265046540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would honestly be very happy with 10mb to my house, well shit, even 2mb would be nice; better than the only service I can get other than dial up. (1mb wireless)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would honestly be very happy with 10mb to my house , well shit , even 2mb would be nice ; better than the only service I can get other than dial up .
( 1mb wireless )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would honestly be very happy with 10mb to my house, well shit, even 2mb would be nice; better than the only service I can get other than dial up.
(1mb wireless)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31181016</id>
	<title>100 mbps in a DECADE ?</title>
	<author>Eivind</author>
	<datestamp>1265054280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're silly. A decade is a long time in broadband -- what was the typical connection-speed a decade ago ?</p><p>And 100 ain't a lot. They should just get done with it and do fibre, atleast to the curb, if not to the basement. We've got fibre-to-the-basement, and a choice of 3 plans: 100, 200 or 400mbps, symetrical. (i.e. the upload-speeds are equally fast)</p><p>And that's -today- not a decade from now.</p><p>I sometimes wonder if USA will keep lagging behind in broadband, if it'll be contagious in a sense, in that it'll lead to decreased influence on high-tech generally. Seems fairly likely to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're silly .
A decade is a long time in broadband -- what was the typical connection-speed a decade ago ? And 100 ai n't a lot .
They should just get done with it and do fibre , atleast to the curb , if not to the basement .
We 've got fibre-to-the-basement , and a choice of 3 plans : 100 , 200 or 400mbps , symetrical .
( i.e. the upload-speeds are equally fast ) And that 's -today- not a decade from now.I sometimes wonder if USA will keep lagging behind in broadband , if it 'll be contagious in a sense , in that it 'll lead to decreased influence on high-tech generally .
Seems fairly likely to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're silly.
A decade is a long time in broadband -- what was the typical connection-speed a decade ago ?And 100 ain't a lot.
They should just get done with it and do fibre, atleast to the curb, if not to the basement.
We've got fibre-to-the-basement, and a choice of 3 plans: 100, 200 or 400mbps, symetrical.
(i.e. the upload-speeds are equally fast)And that's -today- not a decade from now.I sometimes wonder if USA will keep lagging behind in broadband, if it'll be contagious in a sense, in that it'll lead to decreased influence on high-tech generally.
Seems fairly likely to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31174874</id>
	<title>WOW!!</title>
	<author>orlanz</author>
	<datestamp>1265015100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whoa there FCC, lets not set the bar too high here.  We don't want to even look like we are trying to catch up to the other countries in this race.  I think most of are quite happy with the delusion that we are not in last place.</p><p>100 Mbps for 100 Million homes in 10 years.  That's like giving Tokyo, with half their density, 100 Mbps in 5 years.  What are our telcos supposed to do?  Crawl to the finish line?</p><p>In case people missed my sarcasm, Tokyo has had the ability for years to provide 100 Mbps speeds to consumers at American 10 Mbps prices.  I say the US gov just eminent domains the telco's (actually paid for by us) infrastructure and hires the Japanese companies to run things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoa there FCC , lets not set the bar too high here .
We do n't want to even look like we are trying to catch up to the other countries in this race .
I think most of are quite happy with the delusion that we are not in last place.100 Mbps for 100 Million homes in 10 years .
That 's like giving Tokyo , with half their density , 100 Mbps in 5 years .
What are our telcos supposed to do ?
Crawl to the finish line ? In case people missed my sarcasm , Tokyo has had the ability for years to provide 100 Mbps speeds to consumers at American 10 Mbps prices .
I say the US gov just eminent domains the telco 's ( actually paid for by us ) infrastructure and hires the Japanese companies to run things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoa there FCC, lets not set the bar too high here.
We don't want to even look like we are trying to catch up to the other countries in this race.
I think most of are quite happy with the delusion that we are not in last place.100 Mbps for 100 Million homes in 10 years.
That's like giving Tokyo, with half their density, 100 Mbps in 5 years.
What are our telcos supposed to do?
Crawl to the finish line?In case people missed my sarcasm, Tokyo has had the ability for years to provide 100 Mbps speeds to consumers at American 10 Mbps prices.
I say the US gov just eminent domains the telco's (actually paid for by us) infrastructure and hires the Japanese companies to run things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31172304</id>
	<title>Re:That would be all well and good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265049840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>get rid of government regulation and your street will end up looking like <a href="http://img2.photographersdirect.com/img/19309/wm/pd1880770.jpg" title="photographersdirect.com" rel="nofollow">this</a> [photographersdirect.com]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>get rid of government regulation and your street will end up looking like this [ photographersdirect.com ] ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>get rid of government regulation and your street will end up looking like this [photographersdirect.com] ;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170696</id>
	<title>Re:Why complain</title>
	<author>AndrewNeo</author>
	<datestamp>1265045160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which is exactly why I hope they mandate this, and <b>don't</b> give them any money to do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is exactly why I hope they mandate this , and do n't give them any money to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is exactly why I hope they mandate this, and don't give them any money to do it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169530</id>
	<title>The Dept, of Agriculture will soon propose...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265041200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>...that 100 million people by 2020 should have a pretty pony.  This will result in 50 people receiving tainted horse steaks by 2035.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...that 100 million people by 2020 should have a pretty pony .
This will result in 50 people receiving tainted horse steaks by 2035 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...that 100 million people by 2020 should have a pretty pony.
This will result in 50 people receiving tainted horse steaks by 2035.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169540</id>
	<title>ISPs almost sound like trolls</title>
	<author>WaXHeLL</author>
	<datestamp>1265041200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article:  </p><p><div class="quote"><p>"First, we don't think the customer wants that. Secondly, if (Google has) invented some technology, we'd love to partner with them,"</p></div><p>Almost sounds like a troll to me. I think most consumers would love a 100Mbps connection -- assuming it was reasonably priced.  That being said, Verizon already offers FiOS at speeds up to 50Mbps, so 100Mbps isn't that much of a stretch.</p><p>Sadly, I'm stuck in an area where it's either ADSL1.x or cable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : " First , we do n't think the customer wants that .
Secondly , if ( Google has ) invented some technology , we 'd love to partner with them , " Almost sounds like a troll to me .
I think most consumers would love a 100Mbps connection -- assuming it was reasonably priced .
That being said , Verizon already offers FiOS at speeds up to 50Mbps , so 100Mbps is n't that much of a stretch.Sadly , I 'm stuck in an area where it 's either ADSL1.x or cable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article:  "First, we don't think the customer wants that.
Secondly, if (Google has) invented some technology, we'd love to partner with them,"Almost sounds like a troll to me.
I think most consumers would love a 100Mbps connection -- assuming it was reasonably priced.
That being said, Verizon already offers FiOS at speeds up to 50Mbps, so 100Mbps isn't that much of a stretch.Sadly, I'm stuck in an area where it's either ADSL1.x or cable.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170094</id>
	<title>Re:Already there</title>
	<author>Hijacked Public</author>
	<datestamp>1265043000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is indeed expensive, but Smithville is at least stepping up to offer service in places that were stuck with satellite. I switch late last year. Had to subsidize the fiber run as I am well back from the road, but they were great to work with.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is indeed expensive , but Smithville is at least stepping up to offer service in places that were stuck with satellite .
I switch late last year .
Had to subsidize the fiber run as I am well back from the road , but they were great to work with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is indeed expensive, but Smithville is at least stepping up to offer service in places that were stuck with satellite.
I switch late last year.
Had to subsidize the fiber run as I am well back from the road, but they were great to work with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31172314</id>
	<title>RE: FCC Proposes 100Mbps Minimum Speed</title>
	<author>MyBrotherSteve</author>
	<datestamp>1265049900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, in other words, what the US ISPs are saying is that South Korea, Japan, France, and over a dozen other countries are (in terms of residential internet connectivity) smarter, more innovative, more creative, better run as businesses, more competitive, and more technologically advanced than US companies are. NINETEENTH. We are NINETEENTH in the world in broadband speeds. Let that sink in for a moment. (Go ahead, I'll wait....) There are already countries that have 100MB home internet connections. Not a lot, but even 10 to 50MB is common in these other countries, and we're limping along at 3.8MB as the average home broadband speed in the US. Many European and Asian countries have CELL PHONE connectivity that is faster than our home internet connections (7MB cell phone connectivity is not uncommon over there). It's not that the equipment or technical know-how does not exist, or even the infrastructure to deploy this higher speed connectivity. The carriers already talk about how many billions they are investing each year into R&amp;D, and how many billions they are investing in infrastructure deployment each year. What they don't talk about, and what many of us fail to understand, is that the money they are spending is purposely aimed at keeping us tied into a system where they slowly and methodically dole out just a little bit more speed every few years, and get the early adopters and people that can really benefit from the faster connection to pay top dollar for it. The FCC isn't saying to do this next year. TEN YEARS from now they're saying that to be LABELED as broadband, the minimum speed should be 100MB. There will still be people on dial-up then, but that should be their CHOICE, not some corporate imposition meant to keep prices artificially higher than they need to be. When there are 100MB connections, they'll still be able to offer people a 1MB DSL connection if they want it, but it will be what people are paying for dial-up now (or cheaper). Just like with hard drives now, you can practically double your capacity for every extra 20 bucks you want to spend, up until you hit about 1TB. So it can be with DSL/cable modem/FTTH. $7.99 for 1MB, $15.99 for 10MB, $20 for 20MB, $29.99 for 50MB, etc. No one is saying they should offer 100MB speeds for fifteen bucks, even 10 years from now. What the FCC is acknowledging (because far be it from US carriers to acknowledge their own shortcomings) is that we are WAY behind, and with the carriers propensity for milking every dollar out of us that they can, that without some sort of prodding, not only will the American public continue to to get milked, but that we will fall farther and farther behind the rest of the world in connectivity, and in turn, our competitiveness in the world. We have all seen what the people of the US have been able to accomplish (from their own homes) in terms of the business they are able to conduct, the ability to stay connected to other people, the creativeness of video, audio and pictures, with just a few MBs to work with. We need to imagine and strive for the ability to do even more; to become leaders once more; to set the example, not to hide behind unsubstantiated statements like those of CEO Mueller ("A 100 meg is just a dream," and "First, we don't think the customer wants that." How can it be just a dream, if other countries are DOING it? You don't think the customer wants it.... Sir, I WANT IT. And it would only take a couple hours for me to introduce you to many, many, many paying customers that 'want it'. For all of the hubris generated by the telecoms and ISPs about their ability to deliver 'what customers want', when compared with the world, either Americans don't want very much any more, or those large faceless corporations aren't being totally forthcoming with the American people. Which one of those do YOU think is the more likely scenario?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , in other words , what the US ISPs are saying is that South Korea , Japan , France , and over a dozen other countries are ( in terms of residential internet connectivity ) smarter , more innovative , more creative , better run as businesses , more competitive , and more technologically advanced than US companies are .
NINETEENTH. We are NINETEENTH in the world in broadband speeds .
Let that sink in for a moment .
( Go ahead , I 'll wait.... ) There are already countries that have 100MB home internet connections .
Not a lot , but even 10 to 50MB is common in these other countries , and we 're limping along at 3.8MB as the average home broadband speed in the US .
Many European and Asian countries have CELL PHONE connectivity that is faster than our home internet connections ( 7MB cell phone connectivity is not uncommon over there ) .
It 's not that the equipment or technical know-how does not exist , or even the infrastructure to deploy this higher speed connectivity .
The carriers already talk about how many billions they are investing each year into R&amp;D , and how many billions they are investing in infrastructure deployment each year .
What they do n't talk about , and what many of us fail to understand , is that the money they are spending is purposely aimed at keeping us tied into a system where they slowly and methodically dole out just a little bit more speed every few years , and get the early adopters and people that can really benefit from the faster connection to pay top dollar for it .
The FCC is n't saying to do this next year .
TEN YEARS from now they 're saying that to be LABELED as broadband , the minimum speed should be 100MB .
There will still be people on dial-up then , but that should be their CHOICE , not some corporate imposition meant to keep prices artificially higher than they need to be .
When there are 100MB connections , they 'll still be able to offer people a 1MB DSL connection if they want it , but it will be what people are paying for dial-up now ( or cheaper ) .
Just like with hard drives now , you can practically double your capacity for every extra 20 bucks you want to spend , up until you hit about 1TB .
So it can be with DSL/cable modem/FTTH .
$ 7.99 for 1MB , $ 15.99 for 10MB , $ 20 for 20MB , $ 29.99 for 50MB , etc .
No one is saying they should offer 100MB speeds for fifteen bucks , even 10 years from now .
What the FCC is acknowledging ( because far be it from US carriers to acknowledge their own shortcomings ) is that we are WAY behind , and with the carriers propensity for milking every dollar out of us that they can , that without some sort of prodding , not only will the American public continue to to get milked , but that we will fall farther and farther behind the rest of the world in connectivity , and in turn , our competitiveness in the world .
We have all seen what the people of the US have been able to accomplish ( from their own homes ) in terms of the business they are able to conduct , the ability to stay connected to other people , the creativeness of video , audio and pictures , with just a few MBs to work with .
We need to imagine and strive for the ability to do even more ; to become leaders once more ; to set the example , not to hide behind unsubstantiated statements like those of CEO Mueller ( " A 100 meg is just a dream , " and " First , we do n't think the customer wants that .
" How can it be just a dream , if other countries are DOING it ?
You do n't think the customer wants it.... Sir , I WANT IT .
And it would only take a couple hours for me to introduce you to many , many , many paying customers that 'want it' .
For all of the hubris generated by the telecoms and ISPs about their ability to deliver 'what customers want ' , when compared with the world , either Americans do n't want very much any more , or those large faceless corporations are n't being totally forthcoming with the American people .
Which one of those do YOU think is the more likely scenario ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, in other words, what the US ISPs are saying is that South Korea, Japan, France, and over a dozen other countries are (in terms of residential internet connectivity) smarter, more innovative, more creative, better run as businesses, more competitive, and more technologically advanced than US companies are.
NINETEENTH. We are NINETEENTH in the world in broadband speeds.
Let that sink in for a moment.
(Go ahead, I'll wait....) There are already countries that have 100MB home internet connections.
Not a lot, but even 10 to 50MB is common in these other countries, and we're limping along at 3.8MB as the average home broadband speed in the US.
Many European and Asian countries have CELL PHONE connectivity that is faster than our home internet connections (7MB cell phone connectivity is not uncommon over there).
It's not that the equipment or technical know-how does not exist, or even the infrastructure to deploy this higher speed connectivity.
The carriers already talk about how many billions they are investing each year into R&amp;D, and how many billions they are investing in infrastructure deployment each year.
What they don't talk about, and what many of us fail to understand, is that the money they are spending is purposely aimed at keeping us tied into a system where they slowly and methodically dole out just a little bit more speed every few years, and get the early adopters and people that can really benefit from the faster connection to pay top dollar for it.
The FCC isn't saying to do this next year.
TEN YEARS from now they're saying that to be LABELED as broadband, the minimum speed should be 100MB.
There will still be people on dial-up then, but that should be their CHOICE, not some corporate imposition meant to keep prices artificially higher than they need to be.
When there are 100MB connections, they'll still be able to offer people a 1MB DSL connection if they want it, but it will be what people are paying for dial-up now (or cheaper).
Just like with hard drives now, you can practically double your capacity for every extra 20 bucks you want to spend, up until you hit about 1TB.
So it can be with DSL/cable modem/FTTH.
$7.99 for 1MB, $15.99 for 10MB, $20 for 20MB, $29.99 for 50MB, etc.
No one is saying they should offer 100MB speeds for fifteen bucks, even 10 years from now.
What the FCC is acknowledging (because far be it from US carriers to acknowledge their own shortcomings) is that we are WAY behind, and with the carriers propensity for milking every dollar out of us that they can, that without some sort of prodding, not only will the American public continue to to get milked, but that we will fall farther and farther behind the rest of the world in connectivity, and in turn, our competitiveness in the world.
We have all seen what the people of the US have been able to accomplish (from their own homes) in terms of the business they are able to conduct, the ability to stay connected to other people, the creativeness of video, audio and pictures, with just a few MBs to work with.
We need to imagine and strive for the ability to do even more; to become leaders once more; to set the example, not to hide behind unsubstantiated statements like those of CEO Mueller ("A 100 meg is just a dream," and "First, we don't think the customer wants that.
" How can it be just a dream, if other countries are DOING it?
You don't think the customer wants it.... Sir, I WANT IT.
And it would only take a couple hours for me to introduce you to many, many, many paying customers that 'want it'.
For all of the hubris generated by the telecoms and ISPs about their ability to deliver 'what customers want', when compared with the world, either Americans don't want very much any more, or those large faceless corporations aren't being totally forthcoming with the American people.
Which one of those do YOU think is the more likely scenario?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31173728</id>
	<title>Re:This should have been done years ago</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1265054340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The telcos have offered dumbed-down, legacy speeds because they are trying to become more closely associated with the entertainment industry than with telecommunications. The entertainment and other content industries do not want the competition that comes when every subscriber can become an originator.</p></div><p>I find it pretty frustrating how consumer internet speeds are generally asymmetrical.  I understand that most people don't really care about upload speeds, but I've long suspected that there are sinister motives at work.  I think big ISPs have tried to portray themselves as an entertainment service for a variety of self-serving reasons:
</p><ul>
<li> They want to control content distribution.  As far as some of these people are concerned, the Internet is a great business opportunity for large media companies, and it's unfortunate that the whole thing isn't isn't a broadcast network.</li>
<li> They want to nickel and dime you and the companies you interact with. (see: net neutrality)</li>
<li> They want to avoid regulation.  If they admit to being telecommunications infrastructure, then it suddenly seems much more reasonable that the people (and therefore the government) would expect certain things from them.  However, as long as the Internet is viewed as an "entertainment service", there isn't really a compelling public interest in requiring good service.</li>
<li> They want to charge a premium to businesses.  A lot of ISPs will provide very slow upload speeds, block ports, and refuse to provide static IPs unless you pay for a much more expensive business account.  Sometimes simply converting to a "business account" doubles the price of the service, and then you still have to pay additional fees for faster speeds and static IPs.</li>
</ul><p>I could probably come up with more, but that's just off the top of my head.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The telcos have offered dumbed-down , legacy speeds because they are trying to become more closely associated with the entertainment industry than with telecommunications .
The entertainment and other content industries do not want the competition that comes when every subscriber can become an originator.I find it pretty frustrating how consumer internet speeds are generally asymmetrical .
I understand that most people do n't really care about upload speeds , but I 've long suspected that there are sinister motives at work .
I think big ISPs have tried to portray themselves as an entertainment service for a variety of self-serving reasons : They want to control content distribution .
As far as some of these people are concerned , the Internet is a great business opportunity for large media companies , and it 's unfortunate that the whole thing is n't is n't a broadcast network .
They want to nickel and dime you and the companies you interact with .
( see : net neutrality ) They want to avoid regulation .
If they admit to being telecommunications infrastructure , then it suddenly seems much more reasonable that the people ( and therefore the government ) would expect certain things from them .
However , as long as the Internet is viewed as an " entertainment service " , there is n't really a compelling public interest in requiring good service .
They want to charge a premium to businesses .
A lot of ISPs will provide very slow upload speeds , block ports , and refuse to provide static IPs unless you pay for a much more expensive business account .
Sometimes simply converting to a " business account " doubles the price of the service , and then you still have to pay additional fees for faster speeds and static IPs .
I could probably come up with more , but that 's just off the top of my head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The telcos have offered dumbed-down, legacy speeds because they are trying to become more closely associated with the entertainment industry than with telecommunications.
The entertainment and other content industries do not want the competition that comes when every subscriber can become an originator.I find it pretty frustrating how consumer internet speeds are generally asymmetrical.
I understand that most people don't really care about upload speeds, but I've long suspected that there are sinister motives at work.
I think big ISPs have tried to portray themselves as an entertainment service for a variety of self-serving reasons:

 They want to control content distribution.
As far as some of these people are concerned, the Internet is a great business opportunity for large media companies, and it's unfortunate that the whole thing isn't isn't a broadcast network.
They want to nickel and dime you and the companies you interact with.
(see: net neutrality)
 They want to avoid regulation.
If they admit to being telecommunications infrastructure, then it suddenly seems much more reasonable that the people (and therefore the government) would expect certain things from them.
However, as long as the Internet is viewed as an "entertainment service", there isn't really a compelling public interest in requiring good service.
They want to charge a premium to businesses.
A lot of ISPs will provide very slow upload speeds, block ports, and refuse to provide static IPs unless you pay for a much more expensive business account.
Sometimes simply converting to a "business account" doubles the price of the service, and then you still have to pay additional fees for faster speeds and static IPs.
I could probably come up with more, but that's just off the top of my head.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170544</id>
	<title>Re:DigiTechGuy</title>
	<author>guruevi</author>
	<datestamp>1265044620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is over the next 10 years. Europe already has 100Mbps to the home and Japan has Gigabit to the home. It's not that hard to do, cable (DOCSIS 3.0) already supports 300Mbps down/100Mbps up. VDSL supports 100Mbps too. In 10 years, the rest of the world most likely will have gigabit or 10Gb to the home.</p><p>The issue is that the carriers rather suck you dry than offer you better service. All they have to do is enable the service and maybe put some more effort in expanding the backbone. There is enough dark fibre and even lighted fibre that is ready to support those speeds. How much do you pay for DSL/Cable? How much subscribers does your ISP have? How many years did you have the same speeds now? 5 years? 10 years?</p><p>The really small ISP's just rents/leases somebody else's hardware and cables, when the parent company goes up in speed, they will go up too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is over the next 10 years .
Europe already has 100Mbps to the home and Japan has Gigabit to the home .
It 's not that hard to do , cable ( DOCSIS 3.0 ) already supports 300Mbps down/100Mbps up .
VDSL supports 100Mbps too .
In 10 years , the rest of the world most likely will have gigabit or 10Gb to the home.The issue is that the carriers rather suck you dry than offer you better service .
All they have to do is enable the service and maybe put some more effort in expanding the backbone .
There is enough dark fibre and even lighted fibre that is ready to support those speeds .
How much do you pay for DSL/Cable ?
How much subscribers does your ISP have ?
How many years did you have the same speeds now ?
5 years ?
10 years ? The really small ISP 's just rents/leases somebody else 's hardware and cables , when the parent company goes up in speed , they will go up too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is over the next 10 years.
Europe already has 100Mbps to the home and Japan has Gigabit to the home.
It's not that hard to do, cable (DOCSIS 3.0) already supports 300Mbps down/100Mbps up.
VDSL supports 100Mbps too.
In 10 years, the rest of the world most likely will have gigabit or 10Gb to the home.The issue is that the carriers rather suck you dry than offer you better service.
All they have to do is enable the service and maybe put some more effort in expanding the backbone.
There is enough dark fibre and even lighted fibre that is ready to support those speeds.
How much do you pay for DSL/Cable?
How much subscribers does your ISP have?
How many years did you have the same speeds now?
5 years?
10 years?The really small ISP's just rents/leases somebody else's hardware and cables, when the parent company goes up in speed, they will go up too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169944</id>
	<title>Why not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265042520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is the government's responsibility to ensure consumer satisfaction. Raising the standards is not government interference. Interference would be to aiding one provider against another. We the people must demand minimum standards. We the people must protect our privacy. We the people have other choices as well, including denying access to public networks and spectrums for any vendor who does not meet our minimum needs.</p><p>Those who claim that their DSL speeds are adequate now, can continue to use those speeds without harm. Higher speeds don't mean your slow connections will be cut off or be affected.</p><p>If these simple tenets can be adhered to, maybe we will have a chance to catch up with a dozen other countries who enjoy these speeds and benefits right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is the government 's responsibility to ensure consumer satisfaction .
Raising the standards is not government interference .
Interference would be to aiding one provider against another .
We the people must demand minimum standards .
We the people must protect our privacy .
We the people have other choices as well , including denying access to public networks and spectrums for any vendor who does not meet our minimum needs.Those who claim that their DSL speeds are adequate now , can continue to use those speeds without harm .
Higher speeds do n't mean your slow connections will be cut off or be affected.If these simple tenets can be adhered to , maybe we will have a chance to catch up with a dozen other countries who enjoy these speeds and benefits right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is the government's responsibility to ensure consumer satisfaction.
Raising the standards is not government interference.
Interference would be to aiding one provider against another.
We the people must demand minimum standards.
We the people must protect our privacy.
We the people have other choices as well, including denying access to public networks and spectrums for any vendor who does not meet our minimum needs.Those who claim that their DSL speeds are adequate now, can continue to use those speeds without harm.
Higher speeds don't mean your slow connections will be cut off or be affected.If these simple tenets can be adhered to, maybe we will have a chance to catch up with a dozen other countries who enjoy these speeds and benefits right now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169930</id>
	<title>100Mbps minimum is a start...</title>
	<author>gozu</author>
	<datestamp>1265042460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The truth is by 2020, everyone should have 10 Gbps fiber to the home. Anything less will make internet speed the limiting factor.</p><p>Let's also remember that Sweden had common, affordable 100Mbps to the home almost a decade ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The truth is by 2020 , everyone should have 10 Gbps fiber to the home .
Anything less will make internet speed the limiting factor.Let 's also remember that Sweden had common , affordable 100Mbps to the home almost a decade ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The truth is by 2020, everyone should have 10 Gbps fiber to the home.
Anything less will make internet speed the limiting factor.Let's also remember that Sweden had common, affordable 100Mbps to the home almost a decade ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170020</id>
	<title>Re:That would be all well and good</title>
	<author>vvaduva</author>
	<datestamp>1265042700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, so the cost of upgrades required by the government come out of their asses right? If you think you are not going to be the one paying for the FCC-mandated upgrades, you are living in la-la land.  Who do you think is going to pay for it, the isp? No, the customer will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , so the cost of upgrades required by the government come out of their asses right ?
If you think you are not going to be the one paying for the FCC-mandated upgrades , you are living in la-la land .
Who do you think is going to pay for it , the isp ?
No , the customer will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, so the cost of upgrades required by the government come out of their asses right?
If you think you are not going to be the one paying for the FCC-mandated upgrades, you are living in la-la land.
Who do you think is going to pay for it, the isp?
No, the customer will.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169678</id>
	<title>wow...</title>
	<author>rfolkker</author>
	<datestamp>1265041680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am glad I heard that Devo is back to sing play out the end of days.  While I agree that things will probably get twisted, I would like to see higher band-widths available to the general public.  The general demoralizing and insulting response to something the government is *trying* to improve is funny.  It's like kids getting upset with their parents promising a pony for a birthday.  Instead of being happy at the COMPLETELY ridiculous gift, the insults and concerns of: well, if I even get the pony, who is going to feed it, where is it going to stay, my parents aren't even going to give me time to play with it, it will probably kick me, nobody else is going to get a pony, I already bought my own pony...</p><p>Lighten up people, you will have enough time to complain when things fail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am glad I heard that Devo is back to sing play out the end of days .
While I agree that things will probably get twisted , I would like to see higher band-widths available to the general public .
The general demoralizing and insulting response to something the government is * trying * to improve is funny .
It 's like kids getting upset with their parents promising a pony for a birthday .
Instead of being happy at the COMPLETELY ridiculous gift , the insults and concerns of : well , if I even get the pony , who is going to feed it , where is it going to stay , my parents are n't even going to give me time to play with it , it will probably kick me , nobody else is going to get a pony , I already bought my own pony...Lighten up people , you will have enough time to complain when things fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am glad I heard that Devo is back to sing play out the end of days.
While I agree that things will probably get twisted, I would like to see higher band-widths available to the general public.
The general demoralizing and insulting response to something the government is *trying* to improve is funny.
It's like kids getting upset with their parents promising a pony for a birthday.
Instead of being happy at the COMPLETELY ridiculous gift, the insults and concerns of: well, if I even get the pony, who is going to feed it, where is it going to stay, my parents aren't even going to give me time to play with it, it will probably kick me, nobody else is going to get a pony, I already bought my own pony...Lighten up people, you will have enough time to complain when things fail.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169954</id>
	<title>Re:Transfer limits, not speed!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265042580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More like less than 20 minutes!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More like less than 20 minutes !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More like less than 20 minutes!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170044</id>
	<title>PI in the sky</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265042760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and other government proposals include ensuring that all americans will have an above average income by 2016.<br>Cingress is also going to change the laws of thermodynamics to make internal combustion engines 100\% efficient.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and other government proposals include ensuring that all americans will have an above average income by 2016.Cingress is also going to change the laws of thermodynamics to make internal combustion engines 100 \ % efficient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and other government proposals include ensuring that all americans will have an above average income by 2016.Cingress is also going to change the laws of thermodynamics to make internal combustion engines 100\% efficient.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169782</id>
	<title>I'm for it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265041980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as they are just saying that to be called  (the word they are 'defining') you need to maintain such a minimum speed, slower offerings should be allowed, but just can't claim to be .</p><p>Just as their are regulations on what is given the name 'organic', we still allow non-organic foods, but they aren't allowed to claim to be organic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as they are just saying that to be called ( the word they are 'defining ' ) you need to maintain such a minimum speed , slower offerings should be allowed , but just ca n't claim to be .Just as their are regulations on what is given the name 'organic ' , we still allow non-organic foods , but they are n't allowed to claim to be organic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as they are just saying that to be called  (the word they are 'defining') you need to maintain such a minimum speed, slower offerings should be allowed, but just can't claim to be .Just as their are regulations on what is given the name 'organic', we still allow non-organic foods, but they aren't allowed to claim to be organic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169410</id>
	<title>That would be all well and good</title>
	<author>dreamchaser</author>
	<datestamp>1265040780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That would be all well and good if it were the Government's place to mandate minimum speeds.  Frankly I'd rather see them focus on keeping the 'net free and neutral or forcing the telcos to expand broadband coverage like they were supposed to after all the incentives they got. Let market forces deal with bandwidth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be all well and good if it were the Government 's place to mandate minimum speeds .
Frankly I 'd rather see them focus on keeping the 'net free and neutral or forcing the telcos to expand broadband coverage like they were supposed to after all the incentives they got .
Let market forces deal with bandwidth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be all well and good if it were the Government's place to mandate minimum speeds.
Frankly I'd rather see them focus on keeping the 'net free and neutral or forcing the telcos to expand broadband coverage like they were supposed to after all the incentives they got.
Let market forces deal with bandwidth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170562</id>
	<title>Re:That would be all well and good</title>
	<author>kaiser423</author>
	<datestamp>1265044680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My bet is that that "regulation" was a law pushed for by the cable company.  I know that in my old apartment complex area, there was a similar law.  The apartment complex next door had a different provider with different services, which were much better than mine.  But they couldn't supply my apartment.  Why?  The companies got together, got a law passed and divided up the town.  Multiple providers, but no competition.  Both companies make much more money this way rather than competing (and therefore operating on razor thin margins).</htmltext>
<tokenext>My bet is that that " regulation " was a law pushed for by the cable company .
I know that in my old apartment complex area , there was a similar law .
The apartment complex next door had a different provider with different services , which were much better than mine .
But they could n't supply my apartment .
Why ? The companies got together , got a law passed and divided up the town .
Multiple providers , but no competition .
Both companies make much more money this way rather than competing ( and therefore operating on razor thin margins ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My bet is that that "regulation" was a law pushed for by the cable company.
I know that in my old apartment complex area, there was a similar law.
The apartment complex next door had a different provider with different services, which were much better than mine.
But they couldn't supply my apartment.
Why?  The companies got together, got a law passed and divided up the town.
Multiple providers, but no competition.
Both companies make much more money this way rather than competing (and therefore operating on razor thin margins).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31175380</id>
	<title>Why ISPs?</title>
	<author>Fantom42</author>
	<datestamp>1265016720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't read the bill, but why should/are ISPs responsible for this?  Granted I guess you could argue that there are tiers of ISPs, but if I am trying to provide internet to a condo, or something, the cost of dedicated bandwidth is what it costs.  And most places, the loop is a significant (about half) of the monthly cost as well.  So how am I, down at Tier 2 or 3, going to control the cost and availability of bandwidth?</p><p>Also.</p><p>What does it mean to have 100Mbps internet? Is that 100Mbps internet during peak hours when everyone is downloading, or a maximum rate of 100Mbps theoretical, if no one else is on the line?  Things like this matter quite a lot.  And just to be clear, where I live the cost of a 45Mbps DS3 is right around $1500/mo., and the loop is about the same.  So right now, under the strictest definition, a recurring cost of $6000/mo. would be needed to provide this level of connectivity.  Not to mention the hardware costs associated with providing this to more than, say ten people at a time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't read the bill , but why should/are ISPs responsible for this ?
Granted I guess you could argue that there are tiers of ISPs , but if I am trying to provide internet to a condo , or something , the cost of dedicated bandwidth is what it costs .
And most places , the loop is a significant ( about half ) of the monthly cost as well .
So how am I , down at Tier 2 or 3 , going to control the cost and availability of bandwidth ? Also.What does it mean to have 100Mbps internet ?
Is that 100Mbps internet during peak hours when everyone is downloading , or a maximum rate of 100Mbps theoretical , if no one else is on the line ?
Things like this matter quite a lot .
And just to be clear , where I live the cost of a 45Mbps DS3 is right around $ 1500/mo. , and the loop is about the same .
So right now , under the strictest definition , a recurring cost of $ 6000/mo .
would be needed to provide this level of connectivity .
Not to mention the hardware costs associated with providing this to more than , say ten people at a time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't read the bill, but why should/are ISPs responsible for this?
Granted I guess you could argue that there are tiers of ISPs, but if I am trying to provide internet to a condo, or something, the cost of dedicated bandwidth is what it costs.
And most places, the loop is a significant (about half) of the monthly cost as well.
So how am I, down at Tier 2 or 3, going to control the cost and availability of bandwidth?Also.What does it mean to have 100Mbps internet?
Is that 100Mbps internet during peak hours when everyone is downloading, or a maximum rate of 100Mbps theoretical, if no one else is on the line?
Things like this matter quite a lot.
And just to be clear, where I live the cost of a 45Mbps DS3 is right around $1500/mo., and the loop is about the same.
So right now, under the strictest definition, a recurring cost of $6000/mo.
would be needed to provide this level of connectivity.
Not to mention the hardware costs associated with providing this to more than, say ten people at a time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170482</id>
	<title>Yeah right</title>
	<author>cormander</author>
	<datestamp>1265044380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And IPv6 will be in wide use by then, too, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And IPv6 will be in wide use by then , too , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And IPv6 will be in wide use by then, too, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169710</id>
	<title>Won't happen</title>
	<author>Taibhsear</author>
	<datestamp>1265041740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Until we repeal the government mandated monopoly. Or they'll just redefine 6 Mbps as 100 Mbps. I certainly wouldn't put such douchebaggery passed Comcast, I mean Xfinity, to do so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Until we repeal the government mandated monopoly .
Or they 'll just redefine 6 Mbps as 100 Mbps .
I certainly would n't put such douchebaggery passed Comcast , I mean Xfinity , to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until we repeal the government mandated monopoly.
Or they'll just redefine 6 Mbps as 100 Mbps.
I certainly wouldn't put such douchebaggery passed Comcast, I mean Xfinity, to do so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171546</id>
	<title>Re:That would be all well and good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265047560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should chew your propaganda more before swallowing. You're choking on it.</p><p>Without corporations, this internet thing we have would never have been possible. There is no way small business or government could have created the infrastructure necessary to bring high speed net to people's homes. If you have a problem with our market economy and with corporations then you need to stop using products that are only possible because of them.</p><p>The ingratitude and hypocrisy of people like you makes me sick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should chew your propaganda more before swallowing .
You 're choking on it.Without corporations , this internet thing we have would never have been possible .
There is no way small business or government could have created the infrastructure necessary to bring high speed net to people 's homes .
If you have a problem with our market economy and with corporations then you need to stop using products that are only possible because of them.The ingratitude and hypocrisy of people like you makes me sick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should chew your propaganda more before swallowing.
You're choking on it.Without corporations, this internet thing we have would never have been possible.
There is no way small business or government could have created the infrastructure necessary to bring high speed net to people's homes.
If you have a problem with our market economy and with corporations then you need to stop using products that are only possible because of them.The ingratitude and hypocrisy of people like you makes me sick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31178988</id>
	<title>Re:Not without significant infrastructure change..</title>
	<author>butlerm</author>
	<datestamp>1265033640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I imagine about 90\% of the new homes constructed in the U.S. today have standard twisted pairs from the telephone company.  Telco fiber reaches the neighborhood of course, and then it is copper all the way from there.  Same deal with cable companies.  Fiber to the neighborhood and then coax the rest of the way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I imagine about 90 \ % of the new homes constructed in the U.S. today have standard twisted pairs from the telephone company .
Telco fiber reaches the neighborhood of course , and then it is copper all the way from there .
Same deal with cable companies .
Fiber to the neighborhood and then coax the rest of the way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I imagine about 90\% of the new homes constructed in the U.S. today have standard twisted pairs from the telephone company.
Telco fiber reaches the neighborhood of course, and then it is copper all the way from there.
Same deal with cable companies.
Fiber to the neighborhood and then coax the rest of the way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171040</id>
	<title>Re:That would be all well and good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265046180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Odd - Where I live, 500 yards away, they have 8Mbps cable available for $40/mo. The best I can get is 512Kbps DSL for $85/mo.</p></div></blockquote><p>They have Time Warner cable 500 <i>feet</i> from my house, but my only broadband option is satellite. TW won't run to my house or the other six on my street even if we carry the cost. It isn't a zoning issue, either, since we fall completely within the service area and are encircled by homes with TW cable; it's just TW being dicks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Odd - Where I live , 500 yards away , they have 8Mbps cable available for $ 40/mo .
The best I can get is 512Kbps DSL for $ 85/mo.They have Time Warner cable 500 feet from my house , but my only broadband option is satellite .
TW wo n't run to my house or the other six on my street even if we carry the cost .
It is n't a zoning issue , either , since we fall completely within the service area and are encircled by homes with TW cable ; it 's just TW being dicks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Odd - Where I live, 500 yards away, they have 8Mbps cable available for $40/mo.
The best I can get is 512Kbps DSL for $85/mo.They have Time Warner cable 500 feet from my house, but my only broadband option is satellite.
TW won't run to my house or the other six on my street even if we carry the cost.
It isn't a zoning issue, either, since we fall completely within the service area and are encircled by homes with TW cable; it's just TW being dicks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169536</id>
	<title>The next round of government rule-making...</title>
	<author>Entrope</author>
	<datestamp>1265041200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I, for one, welcome our new pony-mandating FTC overlords and our rainbow-mandating EPA overlords.  Every American should have the government-granted right to upload pictures of their pony galloping under a rainbow at 100 Mbps speeds!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I , for one , welcome our new pony-mandating FTC overlords and our rainbow-mandating EPA overlords .
Every American should have the government-granted right to upload pictures of their pony galloping under a rainbow at 100 Mbps speeds !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, for one, welcome our new pony-mandating FTC overlords and our rainbow-mandating EPA overlords.
Every American should have the government-granted right to upload pictures of their pony galloping under a rainbow at 100 Mbps speeds!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31176518</id>
	<title>Re:This should have been done years ago</title>
	<author>DarkOx</author>
	<datestamp>1265020740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And according to a radio article I listened to yesterday, its hard to even find internet service for your home in Italy; which is the friggin seat of modern western civilization.  Perhaps different cultures just have different priority's maybe the internet is more important the Japanese than to Americans who like to dedicate their resources to big wide roads, spacious housing and lawns.  Who cares?  People and groups of people should do what they want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And according to a radio article I listened to yesterday , its hard to even find internet service for your home in Italy ; which is the friggin seat of modern western civilization .
Perhaps different cultures just have different priority 's maybe the internet is more important the Japanese than to Americans who like to dedicate their resources to big wide roads , spacious housing and lawns .
Who cares ?
People and groups of people should do what they want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And according to a radio article I listened to yesterday, its hard to even find internet service for your home in Italy; which is the friggin seat of modern western civilization.
Perhaps different cultures just have different priority's maybe the internet is more important the Japanese than to Americans who like to dedicate their resources to big wide roads, spacious housing and lawns.
Who cares?
People and groups of people should do what they want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31174696</id>
	<title>Re:Depressingly Unambitious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265057640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What would you be doing with a 15gbps internet connection in 2020? That's damn near memory bus speed. Or several *thousand* simultaneous 1080p blu-ray movie streams. (or still several hundred simultaneous 2160p 3D movie streams). Or just under half of google's entire peak bandwidth.</p><p>Basically you're trying to hold the future to the standards of what was actually a brief bandwidth capacity spike (the dialup to cable/fiber transition). (And of course, people who got cable in 1998 saw much less of a spike from 2000 to 2010... just a 30x move from 1mbps to 30mbps, and that's for people who can actually get 30mbps today. Mine occasionally bursts to 25 but in practice is only about 10).</p><p>In comparison, the 90s only saw about a 20x-25x boost for most people (about 2.4k dialup to 56k dialup, though in practice I could never get above 33.6k...). By that standard, you'd have 750mbit in 2020... although google already announced 1gbps tests a few days ago.</p><p>Further, the FCC's proposal is a minimum, not an average or a maximum. The minimum you can get today is... still dialup, really, though slow DSL and slow cable packages are still available.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What would you be doing with a 15gbps internet connection in 2020 ?
That 's damn near memory bus speed .
Or several * thousand * simultaneous 1080p blu-ray movie streams .
( or still several hundred simultaneous 2160p 3D movie streams ) .
Or just under half of google 's entire peak bandwidth.Basically you 're trying to hold the future to the standards of what was actually a brief bandwidth capacity spike ( the dialup to cable/fiber transition ) .
( And of course , people who got cable in 1998 saw much less of a spike from 2000 to 2010... just a 30x move from 1mbps to 30mbps , and that 's for people who can actually get 30mbps today .
Mine occasionally bursts to 25 but in practice is only about 10 ) .In comparison , the 90s only saw about a 20x-25x boost for most people ( about 2.4k dialup to 56k dialup , though in practice I could never get above 33.6k... ) .
By that standard , you 'd have 750mbit in 2020... although google already announced 1gbps tests a few days ago.Further , the FCC 's proposal is a minimum , not an average or a maximum .
The minimum you can get today is... still dialup , really , though slow DSL and slow cable packages are still available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What would you be doing with a 15gbps internet connection in 2020?
That's damn near memory bus speed.
Or several *thousand* simultaneous 1080p blu-ray movie streams.
(or still several hundred simultaneous 2160p 3D movie streams).
Or just under half of google's entire peak bandwidth.Basically you're trying to hold the future to the standards of what was actually a brief bandwidth capacity spike (the dialup to cable/fiber transition).
(And of course, people who got cable in 1998 saw much less of a spike from 2000 to 2010... just a 30x move from 1mbps to 30mbps, and that's for people who can actually get 30mbps today.
Mine occasionally bursts to 25 but in practice is only about 10).In comparison, the 90s only saw about a 20x-25x boost for most people (about 2.4k dialup to 56k dialup, though in practice I could never get above 33.6k...).
By that standard, you'd have 750mbit in 2020... although google already announced 1gbps tests a few days ago.Further, the FCC's proposal is a minimum, not an average or a maximum.
The minimum you can get today is... still dialup, really, though slow DSL and slow cable packages are still available.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31172028</id>
	<title>Korea, 1g by 2012</title>
	<author>popeye44</author>
	<datestamp>1265049000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Umm, why should they have all the fun?</p><p><a href="http://gigaom.com/2009/02/01/by-2012-koreans-will-get-a-gigabit-per-second-broadband-connection/" title="gigaom.com">http://gigaom.com/2009/02/01/by-2012-koreans-will-get-a-gigabit-per-second-broadband-connection/</a> [gigaom.com]</p><p>As difficult as it might be to roll it out. There is NO doubt we would find a use for it.</p><p>I for one live in a house with a fiber box on my property.. and Lovely ATT only wants to use Copper "mind you I have a conduit from the box to my house!!" as well as giving me less speed than Comcrap and charging more. Seems like the competition is no competition at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm , why should they have all the fun ? http : //gigaom.com/2009/02/01/by-2012-koreans-will-get-a-gigabit-per-second-broadband-connection/ [ gigaom.com ] As difficult as it might be to roll it out .
There is NO doubt we would find a use for it.I for one live in a house with a fiber box on my property.. and Lovely ATT only wants to use Copper " mind you I have a conduit from the box to my house ! !
" as well as giving me less speed than Comcrap and charging more .
Seems like the competition is no competition at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm, why should they have all the fun?http://gigaom.com/2009/02/01/by-2012-koreans-will-get-a-gigabit-per-second-broadband-connection/ [gigaom.com]As difficult as it might be to roll it out.
There is NO doubt we would find a use for it.I for one live in a house with a fiber box on my property.. and Lovely ATT only wants to use Copper "mind you I have a conduit from the box to my house!!
" as well as giving me less speed than Comcrap and charging more.
Seems like the competition is no competition at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31178880</id>
	<title>Re:Depressingly Unambitious</title>
	<author>butlerm</author>
	<datestamp>1265032740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>56K connections are a legacy of voice networks, not some sort of indication of the best technology available at the time.  Ten years ago 768K / 256K DSL was common in many parts of the United States.  Now it is more like 7M / 1M in the same areas.  100M generally requires fiber to the home, and the $3000 cost per home is the main reason why 100M is not likely to be predominant in ten years.  20M / 4M maybe.  Rewiring connections to individual homes is <em>expensive</em>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>56K connections are a legacy of voice networks , not some sort of indication of the best technology available at the time .
Ten years ago 768K / 256K DSL was common in many parts of the United States .
Now it is more like 7M / 1M in the same areas .
100M generally requires fiber to the home , and the $ 3000 cost per home is the main reason why 100M is not likely to be predominant in ten years .
20M / 4M maybe .
Rewiring connections to individual homes is expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>56K connections are a legacy of voice networks, not some sort of indication of the best technology available at the time.
Ten years ago 768K / 256K DSL was common in many parts of the United States.
Now it is more like 7M / 1M in the same areas.
100M generally requires fiber to the home, and the $3000 cost per home is the main reason why 100M is not likely to be predominant in ten years.
20M / 4M maybe.
Rewiring connections to individual homes is expensive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31173696</id>
	<title>Eminent Domain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265054220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have the counties Eminent Domain the infrastructure from the telcos (I don't think anyone could make the argument that the current owners are the best and highest use of the lines) and then lease it out to anyone who wants to be a provider.</p><p>When you pay your bill, you pay an "infrastructure cost" line on your bill that is the same no matter which provider you use, and a fee for the package sold by your provider.</p><p>End result, people flock to providers that give best uptimes, speed, and lowest price.  All the while, the infrastructure is maintained by a government regulated monopoly that has no say in consumer pricing.</p><p>I believe this is how it was done in Japan, and the results are rather impressive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have the counties Eminent Domain the infrastructure from the telcos ( I do n't think anyone could make the argument that the current owners are the best and highest use of the lines ) and then lease it out to anyone who wants to be a provider.When you pay your bill , you pay an " infrastructure cost " line on your bill that is the same no matter which provider you use , and a fee for the package sold by your provider.End result , people flock to providers that give best uptimes , speed , and lowest price .
All the while , the infrastructure is maintained by a government regulated monopoly that has no say in consumer pricing.I believe this is how it was done in Japan , and the results are rather impressive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have the counties Eminent Domain the infrastructure from the telcos (I don't think anyone could make the argument that the current owners are the best and highest use of the lines) and then lease it out to anyone who wants to be a provider.When you pay your bill, you pay an "infrastructure cost" line on your bill that is the same no matter which provider you use, and a fee for the package sold by your provider.End result, people flock to providers that give best uptimes, speed, and lowest price.
All the while, the infrastructure is maintained by a government regulated monopoly that has no say in consumer pricing.I believe this is how it was done in Japan, and the results are rather impressive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170208</id>
	<title>Re:That would be all well and good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265043420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, the government can mandate a minimum speed, which costs a certain amount in investments.</p><p>Now, if this applies to ALL the companies AND there is no cap on what they can charge, there might not be a problem. Even if it costs $10trillion to build the infrastructure, they simply charge customers $500 per month. Because all companies had this cost, there's no choice but to pay.</p><p>If the government does cap the price, maybe you could tell me who would want to invest in a Telecoms company? You're a private guy with $100m in your private stash, and some telecoms company comes along and says "hey, the government has basically forced us to spend a lot on building a network, and it's really unlikely that what we're allowed to charge will mean we will ever get the money back, not the least making a big profit which we could pay to you in return for lending us the money". Are you going to lend them money? Probably not.</p><p>Solution: Take control of all private capital? Or what do you propose? I am genuinely curious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , the government can mandate a minimum speed , which costs a certain amount in investments.Now , if this applies to ALL the companies AND there is no cap on what they can charge , there might not be a problem .
Even if it costs $ 10trillion to build the infrastructure , they simply charge customers $ 500 per month .
Because all companies had this cost , there 's no choice but to pay.If the government does cap the price , maybe you could tell me who would want to invest in a Telecoms company ?
You 're a private guy with $ 100m in your private stash , and some telecoms company comes along and says " hey , the government has basically forced us to spend a lot on building a network , and it 's really unlikely that what we 're allowed to charge will mean we will ever get the money back , not the least making a big profit which we could pay to you in return for lending us the money " .
Are you going to lend them money ?
Probably not.Solution : Take control of all private capital ?
Or what do you propose ?
I am genuinely curious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, the government can mandate a minimum speed, which costs a certain amount in investments.Now, if this applies to ALL the companies AND there is no cap on what they can charge, there might not be a problem.
Even if it costs $10trillion to build the infrastructure, they simply charge customers $500 per month.
Because all companies had this cost, there's no choice but to pay.If the government does cap the price, maybe you could tell me who would want to invest in a Telecoms company?
You're a private guy with $100m in your private stash, and some telecoms company comes along and says "hey, the government has basically forced us to spend a lot on building a network, and it's really unlikely that what we're allowed to charge will mean we will ever get the money back, not the least making a big profit which we could pay to you in return for lending us the money".
Are you going to lend them money?
Probably not.Solution: Take control of all private capital?
Or what do you propose?
I am genuinely curious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170548</id>
	<title>Re:That would be all well and good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265044620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right you are!  When my town had only one ISP, service was crappy and prices were high. Now we have three, each of whom also provides phone and TV. Service is *much* better and prices are more reasonable. Talk to your town about their franchise laws -- the franchise monopolies were one of the biggest ripoffs of the 20th century.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right you are !
When my town had only one ISP , service was crappy and prices were high .
Now we have three , each of whom also provides phone and TV .
Service is * much * better and prices are more reasonable .
Talk to your town about their franchise laws -- the franchise monopolies were one of the biggest ripoffs of the 20th century .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right you are!
When my town had only one ISP, service was crappy and prices were high.
Now we have three, each of whom also provides phone and TV.
Service is *much* better and prices are more reasonable.
Talk to your town about their franchise laws -- the franchise monopolies were one of the biggest ripoffs of the 20th century.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31176510</id>
	<title>Re:Already there</title>
	<author>theaveng</author>
	<datestamp>1265020680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your story is why government needs to mandate DSL be connected to any home-owner that asks for it.  The DSLAM is there.  The wrires a re there.  All that's missing is the final sale to you as a customer.</p><p>Japan's internet is almost nothing but DSL, and they have the world's second-fastest connections.  Let's copy Japan's example.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your story is why government needs to mandate DSL be connected to any home-owner that asks for it .
The DSLAM is there .
The wrires a re there .
All that 's missing is the final sale to you as a customer.Japan 's internet is almost nothing but DSL , and they have the world 's second-fastest connections .
Let 's copy Japan 's example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your story is why government needs to mandate DSL be connected to any home-owner that asks for it.
The DSLAM is there.
The wrires a re there.
All that's missing is the final sale to you as a customer.Japan's internet is almost nothing but DSL, and they have the world's second-fastest connections.
Let's copy Japan's example.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31173098</id>
	<title>Re:Linear vs Exponential growth</title>
	<author>mariushm</author>
	<datestamp>1265052240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If only it was 100 mbps without any restrictions and filtering, it would be enough. As the infrastructure will use fiber optics, the upgrade to faster speeds will be much easier compared to going from DSL to fiber.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If only it was 100 mbps without any restrictions and filtering , it would be enough .
As the infrastructure will use fiber optics , the upgrade to faster speeds will be much easier compared to going from DSL to fiber .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only it was 100 mbps without any restrictions and filtering, it would be enough.
As the infrastructure will use fiber optics, the upgrade to faster speeds will be much easier compared to going from DSL to fiber.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31172404</id>
	<title>Re:That would be all well and good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265050200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try a wireless access point and a pringles can on a friendly neighbors back porch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try a wireless access point and a pringles can on a friendly neighbors back porch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try a wireless access point and a pringles can on a friendly neighbors back porch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170798</id>
	<title>Re:Already there</title>
	<author>Arakun</author>
	<datestamp>1265045520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>For $140/month you'd be able to get a 1000/100 connection in Sweden (if you live on the right address that is).</htmltext>
<tokenext>For $ 140/month you 'd be able to get a 1000/100 connection in Sweden ( if you live on the right address that is ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For $140/month you'd be able to get a 1000/100 connection in Sweden (if you live on the right address that is).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31181032</id>
	<title>I hope</title>
	<author>AMDuser</author>
	<datestamp>1266523500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Were I live I can only get Dial-up 46.6Kbps connection because I am in a rural area in California. I am at a buddy's house right now with a Cable net connection I am downloading as much podcasts and video media as I can before I have to go back to Dial-up.

as a personal note I have been waiting for a Verizon DSL slot to open up were I live for about 4 months now since I moved. I am within range for DSL.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Were I live I can only get Dial-up 46.6Kbps connection because I am in a rural area in California .
I am at a buddy 's house right now with a Cable net connection I am downloading as much podcasts and video media as I can before I have to go back to Dial-up .
as a personal note I have been waiting for a Verizon DSL slot to open up were I live for about 4 months now since I moved .
I am within range for DSL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Were I live I can only get Dial-up 46.6Kbps connection because I am in a rural area in California.
I am at a buddy's house right now with a Cable net connection I am downloading as much podcasts and video media as I can before I have to go back to Dial-up.
as a personal note I have been waiting for a Verizon DSL slot to open up were I live for about 4 months now since I moved.
I am within range for DSL.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31173114</id>
	<title>Re:We're going to MARS!</title>
	<author>gad\_zuki!</author>
	<datestamp>1265052240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;It will be followed by actions which will make it impossible.</p><p>I think you're being overly cynical, which is trendy and will get you mod points, but doesnt mean youre correct.</p><p>Millions of people live within a couple hundred feet of fiber.  The infrastructure is pretty much there. The real issue is the last line connection, which is almost there too. Right now I can get 50mbps internet via Comcast business if I really wanted it.  Verizon's FIOS service also does 50mbps.  Uverse tops out around 24mbps.  So you're really just another hardware generation away from hitting 100mbps.  DOCSIS 4, whatever will replace VDSL2, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; It will be followed by actions which will make it impossible.I think you 're being overly cynical , which is trendy and will get you mod points , but doesnt mean youre correct.Millions of people live within a couple hundred feet of fiber .
The infrastructure is pretty much there .
The real issue is the last line connection , which is almost there too .
Right now I can get 50mbps internet via Comcast business if I really wanted it .
Verizon 's FIOS service also does 50mbps .
Uverse tops out around 24mbps .
So you 're really just another hardware generation away from hitting 100mbps .
DOCSIS 4 , whatever will replace VDSL2 , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;It will be followed by actions which will make it impossible.I think you're being overly cynical, which is trendy and will get you mod points, but doesnt mean youre correct.Millions of people live within a couple hundred feet of fiber.
The infrastructure is pretty much there.
The real issue is the last line connection, which is almost there too.
Right now I can get 50mbps internet via Comcast business if I really wanted it.
Verizon's FIOS service also does 50mbps.
Uverse tops out around 24mbps.
So you're really just another hardware generation away from hitting 100mbps.
DOCSIS 4, whatever will replace VDSL2, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31172032</id>
	<title>Re:This. A thousand times this.</title>
	<author>wintercolby</author>
	<datestamp>1265049000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And this would be the precise reason that I and many people like me are disconnecting their landlines in favor of their cell phones.  I'd rather run the risk of not having phone service than continue to fund the local telco monopoly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And this would be the precise reason that I and many people like me are disconnecting their landlines in favor of their cell phones .
I 'd rather run the risk of not having phone service than continue to fund the local telco monopoly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And this would be the precise reason that I and many people like me are disconnecting their landlines in favor of their cell phones.
I'd rather run the risk of not having phone service than continue to fund the local telco monopoly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171340</id>
	<title>Finally!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265047020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My porn will finish before I do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My porn will finish before I do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My porn will finish before I do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171208</id>
	<title>Good idea, Bad Implementation</title>
	<author>morgauxo</author>
	<datestamp>1265046660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it's great that someone is actually defining a minimum speed for what can be called broadband.  There are quite a few services available today such as BPL, Satellite and some DSL connections which are really more like old-school ISDN than the other "Broadband" options.  Unfortunately anything which is always on and/or faster than a 56k modem often gets labeled as "Broadband" and bought up by consumers who don't know any better.
<br> <br>
Still, looking at it that way I would think it's more of an FTC issue than an FCC one.  Also, I can't see mandating that companies must sell only "Broadband" internet connections.  If someone wants to pay less for a slower speed that's their right. They just shouldn't get to advertise it as broadband.
<br> <br>
Now, for what that minimum speed would be?  I think 100MB is WAY too optimistic.  8MB should be just fine although setting it at something like 20MB could force a smaller more realistic upgrade which we could benefit from as consumers.  Setting it at 100MB seems like it will probably force the price up beyond what most of us want to pay.  Unless of course the networks are already capable or close to capable of this and the providers are just holding back so they can take credit for rolling out upgrades later.  I often wonder why I keep reading articles about the speeds FiOS is capable of and yet the speeds they offer are so much slower.  I find it hard to believe though that the cable companies can get 100MB over their coax lines.  Unless maybe if they are using that new DOCSIS version which uses multiple lines per house.  That is a stupid idea though because multiple lines just means higher failure rates.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's great that someone is actually defining a minimum speed for what can be called broadband .
There are quite a few services available today such as BPL , Satellite and some DSL connections which are really more like old-school ISDN than the other " Broadband " options .
Unfortunately anything which is always on and/or faster than a 56k modem often gets labeled as " Broadband " and bought up by consumers who do n't know any better .
Still , looking at it that way I would think it 's more of an FTC issue than an FCC one .
Also , I ca n't see mandating that companies must sell only " Broadband " internet connections .
If someone wants to pay less for a slower speed that 's their right .
They just should n't get to advertise it as broadband .
Now , for what that minimum speed would be ?
I think 100MB is WAY too optimistic .
8MB should be just fine although setting it at something like 20MB could force a smaller more realistic upgrade which we could benefit from as consumers .
Setting it at 100MB seems like it will probably force the price up beyond what most of us want to pay .
Unless of course the networks are already capable or close to capable of this and the providers are just holding back so they can take credit for rolling out upgrades later .
I often wonder why I keep reading articles about the speeds FiOS is capable of and yet the speeds they offer are so much slower .
I find it hard to believe though that the cable companies can get 100MB over their coax lines .
Unless maybe if they are using that new DOCSIS version which uses multiple lines per house .
That is a stupid idea though because multiple lines just means higher failure rates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's great that someone is actually defining a minimum speed for what can be called broadband.
There are quite a few services available today such as BPL, Satellite and some DSL connections which are really more like old-school ISDN than the other "Broadband" options.
Unfortunately anything which is always on and/or faster than a 56k modem often gets labeled as "Broadband" and bought up by consumers who don't know any better.
Still, looking at it that way I would think it's more of an FTC issue than an FCC one.
Also, I can't see mandating that companies must sell only "Broadband" internet connections.
If someone wants to pay less for a slower speed that's their right.
They just shouldn't get to advertise it as broadband.
Now, for what that minimum speed would be?
I think 100MB is WAY too optimistic.
8MB should be just fine although setting it at something like 20MB could force a smaller more realistic upgrade which we could benefit from as consumers.
Setting it at 100MB seems like it will probably force the price up beyond what most of us want to pay.
Unless of course the networks are already capable or close to capable of this and the providers are just holding back so they can take credit for rolling out upgrades later.
I often wonder why I keep reading articles about the speeds FiOS is capable of and yet the speeds they offer are so much slower.
I find it hard to believe though that the cable companies can get 100MB over their coax lines.
Unless maybe if they are using that new DOCSIS version which uses multiple lines per house.
That is a stupid idea though because multiple lines just means higher failure rates.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170780</id>
	<title>I look forward to this.</title>
	<author>MyLongNickName</author>
	<datestamp>1265045400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My botnet will be able to pump out ONE THOUSAND times the spam that it does now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My botnet will be able to pump out ONE THOUSAND times the spam that it does now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My botnet will be able to pump out ONE THOUSAND times the spam that it does now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31181468</id>
	<title>Re:This. A thousand times this.</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1266485220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>maybe the FCC can ask them to give that $200 billion back,</i> <br> <br>Shouldn't that be plus interest, plus fines...</htmltext>
<tokenext>maybe the FCC can ask them to give that $ 200 billion back , Should n't that be plus interest , plus fines.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>maybe the FCC can ask them to give that $200 billion back,  Shouldn't that be plus interest, plus fines...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169872</id>
	<title>What's up their sleeve?</title>
	<author>voodoo cheesecake</author>
	<datestamp>1265042280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the FCC, (government), wants this speed, then what does that allow them to do? What could you do with that if you were in their shoes and had their resources?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the FCC , ( government ) , wants this speed , then what does that allow them to do ?
What could you do with that if you were in their shoes and had their resources ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the FCC, (government), wants this speed, then what does that allow them to do?
What could you do with that if you were in their shoes and had their resources?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169950</id>
	<title>What's next?</title>
	<author>vvaduva</author>
	<datestamp>1265042520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Besides FCC not having authority to do this, why is this the government's job?  What's next, mandating home delivery of groceries?  This is government run amok.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides FCC not having authority to do this , why is this the government 's job ?
What 's next , mandating home delivery of groceries ?
This is government run amok .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Besides FCC not having authority to do this, why is this the government's job?
What's next, mandating home delivery of groceries?
This is government run amok.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170918</id>
	<title>Re:That would be all well and good</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1265045820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's an easy one to solve... I'd deal with that in a heatbeat. Find a reasonable neighbor, offer to pay for their interent access if they'll let you set up a wireless link. Plain old 802.11g with a couple of Yagi or "coffee can" directional antennas, and you're good for hundreds of feet. Better with 802.11n, but only if you're wiring for MIMO (2 or 3 antennas at either end, and issues with where they're placed if you're optimizing it).</p><p>I actually design radios in my day job, and one such device is a mesh router that can run up to about six miles. I've been really tempted to tap real broadband in neighboring towns... the frequencies used, illegal as hell, unless your're police or the military... but tempting anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's an easy one to solve... I 'd deal with that in a heatbeat .
Find a reasonable neighbor , offer to pay for their interent access if they 'll let you set up a wireless link .
Plain old 802.11g with a couple of Yagi or " coffee can " directional antennas , and you 're good for hundreds of feet .
Better with 802.11n , but only if you 're wiring for MIMO ( 2 or 3 antennas at either end , and issues with where they 're placed if you 're optimizing it ) .I actually design radios in my day job , and one such device is a mesh router that can run up to about six miles .
I 've been really tempted to tap real broadband in neighboring towns... the frequencies used , illegal as hell , unless your 're police or the military... but tempting anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's an easy one to solve... I'd deal with that in a heatbeat.
Find a reasonable neighbor, offer to pay for their interent access if they'll let you set up a wireless link.
Plain old 802.11g with a couple of Yagi or "coffee can" directional antennas, and you're good for hundreds of feet.
Better with 802.11n, but only if you're wiring for MIMO (2 or 3 antennas at either end, and issues with where they're placed if you're optimizing it).I actually design radios in my day job, and one such device is a mesh router that can run up to about six miles.
I've been really tempted to tap real broadband in neighboring towns... the frequencies used, illegal as hell, unless your're police or the military... but tempting anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31177004</id>
	<title>Re:That would be all well and good</title>
	<author>magus\_melchior</author>
	<datestamp>1265022720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Localized monopolies (which is what you most likely ran into) are often under state and/or municipal jurisdiction.</p><p>Why you want the FCC (given the context) to step in (when your sig indicates you'd probably want a smaller federal government) and remove that monopoly truly escapes me.</p><p>If you have a beef with that regulation, take it up with those who enacted or enforce it. Don't sit here and grumble that deregulation of everything will fix all ills.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Localized monopolies ( which is what you most likely ran into ) are often under state and/or municipal jurisdiction.Why you want the FCC ( given the context ) to step in ( when your sig indicates you 'd probably want a smaller federal government ) and remove that monopoly truly escapes me.If you have a beef with that regulation , take it up with those who enacted or enforce it .
Do n't sit here and grumble that deregulation of everything will fix all ills .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Localized monopolies (which is what you most likely ran into) are often under state and/or municipal jurisdiction.Why you want the FCC (given the context) to step in (when your sig indicates you'd probably want a smaller federal government) and remove that monopoly truly escapes me.If you have a beef with that regulation, take it up with those who enacted or enforce it.
Don't sit here and grumble that deregulation of everything will fix all ills.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31173654</id>
	<title>Gov't Stay out!</title>
	<author>frankxcid</author>
	<datestamp>1265054100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Another rule that will end up making things worse. Why can't they just leave it alone.  When will they learn that any time you set a floor on any activity the results are scarcity and scarcity = higher prices.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another rule that will end up making things worse .
Why ca n't they just leave it alone .
When will they learn that any time you set a floor on any activity the results are scarcity and scarcity = higher prices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another rule that will end up making things worse.
Why can't they just leave it alone.
When will they learn that any time you set a floor on any activity the results are scarcity and scarcity = higher prices.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171296</id>
	<title>Totally Practical</title>
	<author>warncke</author>
	<datestamp>1265046900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If cable companies like Comcast weren't spending more on their cable franchises (monopoly licences/payoffs) than they are on capital.  Comcast juices its customers relentlessly.  I used to live in the downtown of an urban area about 1/4 mile from their DC, and of course paid the exact same, for the same s**t speed as someone in the middle of nowhere.  Good stuff.  Free markets rule!</htmltext>
<tokenext>If cable companies like Comcast were n't spending more on their cable franchises ( monopoly licences/payoffs ) than they are on capital .
Comcast juices its customers relentlessly .
I used to live in the downtown of an urban area about 1/4 mile from their DC , and of course paid the exact same , for the same s * * t speed as someone in the middle of nowhere .
Good stuff .
Free markets rule !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If cable companies like Comcast weren't spending more on their cable franchises (monopoly licences/payoffs) than they are on capital.
Comcast juices its customers relentlessly.
I used to live in the downtown of an urban area about 1/4 mile from their DC, and of course paid the exact same, for the same s**t speed as someone in the middle of nowhere.
Good stuff.
Free markets rule!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170140</id>
	<title>Sounds easy!</title>
	<author>Evro</author>
	<datestamp>1265043180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Put a 48-port Netgear switch on each phone pole and run Cat6 to the house.  Done!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Put a 48-port Netgear switch on each phone pole and run Cat6 to the house .
Done !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Put a 48-port Netgear switch on each phone pole and run Cat6 to the house.
Done!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169998</id>
	<title>Re:That would be all well and good</title>
	<author>lwsimon</author>
	<datestamp>1265042640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Odd - Where I live, 500 yards away, they have 8Mbps cable available for $40/mo.  The best I can get is 512Kbps DSL for $85/mo.  I offered to pay to have the line run up the hill to my home, and got an easement from the landowner to do so, but was stopped when I discovered that it wasn't legal to extend cable coverage outside the prescribed service area.</p><p>Get rid of the government "regulation" on this, and I'd have decent internet in a week.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Odd - Where I live , 500 yards away , they have 8Mbps cable available for $ 40/mo .
The best I can get is 512Kbps DSL for $ 85/mo .
I offered to pay to have the line run up the hill to my home , and got an easement from the landowner to do so , but was stopped when I discovered that it was n't legal to extend cable coverage outside the prescribed service area.Get rid of the government " regulation " on this , and I 'd have decent internet in a week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Odd - Where I live, 500 yards away, they have 8Mbps cable available for $40/mo.
The best I can get is 512Kbps DSL for $85/mo.
I offered to pay to have the line run up the hill to my home, and got an easement from the landowner to do so, but was stopped when I discovered that it wasn't legal to extend cable coverage outside the prescribed service area.Get rid of the government "regulation" on this, and I'd have decent internet in a week.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170164</id>
	<title>I cannot get 1 mb/s</title>
	<author>classicvw</author>
	<datestamp>1265043240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would be happy to just get a true 1 mb/s.
I live in a rural area, and other than dial-up, the only option I have is WiFi to an access point that is overloaded.  Everybody in the area uses it, and on a Saturday afternoon and evening, it is not much better than 56k dial-up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would be happy to just get a true 1 mb/s .
I live in a rural area , and other than dial-up , the only option I have is WiFi to an access point that is overloaded .
Everybody in the area uses it , and on a Saturday afternoon and evening , it is not much better than 56k dial-up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would be happy to just get a true 1 mb/s.
I live in a rural area, and other than dial-up, the only option I have is WiFi to an access point that is overloaded.
Everybody in the area uses it, and on a Saturday afternoon and evening, it is not much better than 56k dial-up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170756</id>
	<title>Re:That would be all well and good</title>
	<author>berwiki</author>
	<datestamp>1265045340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and yet Comcast gets progressively faster every year.

<br>maybe not quite up to <i>your</i> expectations, but I have something like 12-15 mbps down now.  using the "standard internet package".

<br>thats a hell of a lot better than the 1.54mbps I got when comcast broadband first came out a decade ago.
<br> <br>I think your doomsday predictions about "evil mega-corporations" are a bit much.</htmltext>
<tokenext>and yet Comcast gets progressively faster every year .
maybe not quite up to your expectations , but I have something like 12-15 mbps down now .
using the " standard internet package " .
thats a hell of a lot better than the 1.54mbps I got when comcast broadband first came out a decade ago .
I think your doomsday predictions about " evil mega-corporations " are a bit much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and yet Comcast gets progressively faster every year.
maybe not quite up to your expectations, but I have something like 12-15 mbps down now.
using the "standard internet package".
thats a hell of a lot better than the 1.54mbps I got when comcast broadband first came out a decade ago.
I think your doomsday predictions about "evil mega-corporations" are a bit much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171970</id>
	<title>Re:That would be all well and good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265048820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And just who was it that lobbied viciously for this "government "regulation""? If the regulation didn't exist the telecoms would just have a back room deal. Damn free market nutjobs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And just who was it that lobbied viciously for this " government " regulation " " ?
If the regulation did n't exist the telecoms would just have a back room deal .
Damn free market nutjobs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And just who was it that lobbied viciously for this "government "regulation""?
If the regulation didn't exist the telecoms would just have a back room deal.
Damn free market nutjobs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31178052</id>
	<title>Re:This should have been done years ago</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265026980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hulu needs a lot of bandwidth, and 1Mb DSL just don't cut it. There was probably a lot of lobbying behind this government "suggestion," aiming for a backbone that Time Warner and other giant USA media companies can harness as DVD sales and TV advertisements seem to lose effectiveness in light of the internet media.</p><p>To us US dwellers, it looks like a step forward, but with 10 years to execute this "suggested" move, and probably 10 more to apply it (remember failed HDTV deadlines?) the government is merely trying to stop falling behind world averages. 100Mb will likely be behind overseas standards of 1Gb by then.</p><p>We create the cellphone, and cash in for decades without improvement. Another country creates something better (pictures, SMS, video) and we ignore it until there's too much money to leave the market alone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hulu needs a lot of bandwidth , and 1Mb DSL just do n't cut it .
There was probably a lot of lobbying behind this government " suggestion , " aiming for a backbone that Time Warner and other giant USA media companies can harness as DVD sales and TV advertisements seem to lose effectiveness in light of the internet media.To us US dwellers , it looks like a step forward , but with 10 years to execute this " suggested " move , and probably 10 more to apply it ( remember failed HDTV deadlines ?
) the government is merely trying to stop falling behind world averages .
100Mb will likely be behind overseas standards of 1Gb by then.We create the cellphone , and cash in for decades without improvement .
Another country creates something better ( pictures , SMS , video ) and we ignore it until there 's too much money to leave the market alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hulu needs a lot of bandwidth, and 1Mb DSL just don't cut it.
There was probably a lot of lobbying behind this government "suggestion," aiming for a backbone that Time Warner and other giant USA media companies can harness as DVD sales and TV advertisements seem to lose effectiveness in light of the internet media.To us US dwellers, it looks like a step forward, but with 10 years to execute this "suggested" move, and probably 10 more to apply it (remember failed HDTV deadlines?
) the government is merely trying to stop falling behind world averages.
100Mb will likely be behind overseas standards of 1Gb by then.We create the cellphone, and cash in for decades without improvement.
Another country creates something better (pictures, SMS, video) and we ignore it until there's too much money to leave the market alone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31174090</id>
	<title>Re:cap</title>
	<author>Buelldozer</author>
	<datestamp>1265055540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>100 mb/sec will be your link speed however actual throughput will still be in the sub 1mb/s range just as it is now.</p><p>See, problem solved!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>100 mb/sec will be your link speed however actual throughput will still be in the sub 1mb/s range just as it is now.See , problem solved !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>100 mb/sec will be your link speed however actual throughput will still be in the sub 1mb/s range just as it is now.See, problem solved!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31186586</id>
	<title>Re:Already there</title>
	<author>hidave</author>
	<datestamp>1266516900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lucky you. I live in Tennessee, where only about 20\% of the area (10\% in my county) has availability of broadband. Now this doesn't cover satellite access, which everybody already has, but then that isn't really broadband, and it certainly isn't "affordable." With satellite I can get only 1.5 Mbps download and 50 kbps upload on a good day. And a FAP that limits upload to 5 GB per month and download to 17 GB per month. So forget about online backup. No cable, no DSL, and no EvDO - right here in the middle of the USA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lucky you .
I live in Tennessee , where only about 20 \ % of the area ( 10 \ % in my county ) has availability of broadband .
Now this does n't cover satellite access , which everybody already has , but then that is n't really broadband , and it certainly is n't " affordable .
" With satellite I can get only 1.5 Mbps download and 50 kbps upload on a good day .
And a FAP that limits upload to 5 GB per month and download to 17 GB per month .
So forget about online backup .
No cable , no DSL , and no EvDO - right here in the middle of the USA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lucky you.
I live in Tennessee, where only about 20\% of the area (10\% in my county) has availability of broadband.
Now this doesn't cover satellite access, which everybody already has, but then that isn't really broadband, and it certainly isn't "affordable.
" With satellite I can get only 1.5 Mbps download and 50 kbps upload on a good day.
And a FAP that limits upload to 5 GB per month and download to 17 GB per month.
So forget about online backup.
No cable, no DSL, and no EvDO - right here in the middle of the USA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170174</id>
	<title>Not that it would really matter</title>
	<author>wisnoskij</author>
	<datestamp>1265043240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not that it would matter what speed you get if they keep they extremely low max caps.<br>
and why 100Mbps, it seems so excessive, I find my 5Mbps adequate. And what about upload, if their is not a similar increase in upload speed you would not see any benefit form 100Mbps unless you download from many many servers at the same time.
With 100 Mbps you will be able to run out of bandwidth for the month in a few minutes.<br> <br>
And their is probably a lot more important things they could be going for: net neutrality, increased caps, stopping the angry phone calls from ISP (complaining that you are ruining it for everyone) when you actually use close to your max rate you paid for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that it would matter what speed you get if they keep they extremely low max caps .
and why 100Mbps , it seems so excessive , I find my 5Mbps adequate .
And what about upload , if their is not a similar increase in upload speed you would not see any benefit form 100Mbps unless you download from many many servers at the same time .
With 100 Mbps you will be able to run out of bandwidth for the month in a few minutes .
And their is probably a lot more important things they could be going for : net neutrality , increased caps , stopping the angry phone calls from ISP ( complaining that you are ruining it for everyone ) when you actually use close to your max rate you paid for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that it would matter what speed you get if they keep they extremely low max caps.
and why 100Mbps, it seems so excessive, I find my 5Mbps adequate.
And what about upload, if their is not a similar increase in upload speed you would not see any benefit form 100Mbps unless you download from many many servers at the same time.
With 100 Mbps you will be able to run out of bandwidth for the month in a few minutes.
And their is probably a lot more important things they could be going for: net neutrality, increased caps, stopping the angry phone calls from ISP (complaining that you are ruining it for everyone) when you actually use close to your max rate you paid for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169408</id>
	<title>Already there</title>
	<author>suso</author>
	<datestamp>1265040780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good thing I got fiber to my house a month ago in my house out in the sticks.  Now I get 20Mbps down/4 mbps up and my ISP (Smithville Telephone) has plans going up to 100 down/25 up I think, although its like $140/month.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good thing I got fiber to my house a month ago in my house out in the sticks .
Now I get 20Mbps down/4 mbps up and my ISP ( Smithville Telephone ) has plans going up to 100 down/25 up I think , although its like $ 140/month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good thing I got fiber to my house a month ago in my house out in the sticks.
Now I get 20Mbps down/4 mbps up and my ISP (Smithville Telephone) has plans going up to 100 down/25 up I think, although its like $140/month.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170708</id>
	<title>Depressingly Unambitious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265045220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ten years ago I was surfing the internet at 56kbps. Today I can get a 30Mbs connection for around the same price I was paying for my metered 56kBs a decade ago.  That represents more than a 500 fold increase over a decade. To think that the next ten years will only provide a mere 3 fold increase is somewhat depressing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ten years ago I was surfing the internet at 56kbps .
Today I can get a 30Mbs connection for around the same price I was paying for my metered 56kBs a decade ago .
That represents more than a 500 fold increase over a decade .
To think that the next ten years will only provide a mere 3 fold increase is somewhat depressing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ten years ago I was surfing the internet at 56kbps.
Today I can get a 30Mbs connection for around the same price I was paying for my metered 56kBs a decade ago.
That represents more than a 500 fold increase over a decade.
To think that the next ten years will only provide a mere 3 fold increase is somewhat depressing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170082</id>
	<title>100MBit for 1/3 of the pop by 2020?</title>
	<author>Seth Kriticos</author>
	<datestamp>1265042940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thinking back 10 years, we had 56k around here 10 years ago. Now a days 10-16 MBit is very common (central Europe) in urban regions (where around 1/3rd of the population lives). Projecting that to 2020, we'll be at 200-300 MBit. If the US does not manage to upgrade their infrastructure to at least 100MBit in residential areas by then, it will probably declared a developing country or something.</p><p>Hell, around here we even have most of the fibre laid already, just have to get the switch from copper based endpoints to fibre (building wiring).</p><p>So do the telcos in the states really think 100MBit in 10 years is unrealistic? Weird nation..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thinking back 10 years , we had 56k around here 10 years ago .
Now a days 10-16 MBit is very common ( central Europe ) in urban regions ( where around 1/3rd of the population lives ) .
Projecting that to 2020 , we 'll be at 200-300 MBit .
If the US does not manage to upgrade their infrastructure to at least 100MBit in residential areas by then , it will probably declared a developing country or something.Hell , around here we even have most of the fibre laid already , just have to get the switch from copper based endpoints to fibre ( building wiring ) .So do the telcos in the states really think 100MBit in 10 years is unrealistic ?
Weird nation. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thinking back 10 years, we had 56k around here 10 years ago.
Now a days 10-16 MBit is very common (central Europe) in urban regions (where around 1/3rd of the population lives).
Projecting that to 2020, we'll be at 200-300 MBit.
If the US does not manage to upgrade their infrastructure to at least 100MBit in residential areas by then, it will probably declared a developing country or something.Hell, around here we even have most of the fibre laid already, just have to get the switch from copper based endpoints to fibre (building wiring).So do the telcos in the states really think 100MBit in 10 years is unrealistic?
Weird nation..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31176104</id>
	<title>I'm sorry to hear that....</title>
	<author>tinkerghost</author>
	<datestamp>1265019120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do they still delay maintenance on the mail servers to create a more favorable impression of the company? An image consultant told them that people have a more favorable impression of companies with whom they have a small easily fixed problem than companies they never have problems with - so they used to delay maintenance on the mail servers until they had problems, which created huge call spikes, but which were usually resolved before the spike was processed.
</p><p>Is their install schedule still pushed out 30 days with a 'we hope to get to your cable outage within the next week or so' kind of scheduling for repairs? And does it seem that the techs still only know how to tell you to reboot and offer you a bundled package?
</p><p>I worked as a cable modem tech while they were 'improving' their service just before they went bankrupt. They had <b>no</b> metric for solving problems, but scored your raise/bonus impressively for keeping your call time down. By the time they closed my call center, techs coming out of training were literally taught to tell people to reboot their computer and call back - which they would then do 3 or 4 times to the same customer. That was bad enough, but the only other thing they knew how to do was upsell - their 2 week training had more days of sales training than actual tech training.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do they still delay maintenance on the mail servers to create a more favorable impression of the company ?
An image consultant told them that people have a more favorable impression of companies with whom they have a small easily fixed problem than companies they never have problems with - so they used to delay maintenance on the mail servers until they had problems , which created huge call spikes , but which were usually resolved before the spike was processed .
Is their install schedule still pushed out 30 days with a 'we hope to get to your cable outage within the next week or so ' kind of scheduling for repairs ?
And does it seem that the techs still only know how to tell you to reboot and offer you a bundled package ?
I worked as a cable modem tech while they were 'improving ' their service just before they went bankrupt .
They had no metric for solving problems , but scored your raise/bonus impressively for keeping your call time down .
By the time they closed my call center , techs coming out of training were literally taught to tell people to reboot their computer and call back - which they would then do 3 or 4 times to the same customer .
That was bad enough , but the only other thing they knew how to do was upsell - their 2 week training had more days of sales training than actual tech training .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do they still delay maintenance on the mail servers to create a more favorable impression of the company?
An image consultant told them that people have a more favorable impression of companies with whom they have a small easily fixed problem than companies they never have problems with - so they used to delay maintenance on the mail servers until they had problems, which created huge call spikes, but which were usually resolved before the spike was processed.
Is their install schedule still pushed out 30 days with a 'we hope to get to your cable outage within the next week or so' kind of scheduling for repairs?
And does it seem that the techs still only know how to tell you to reboot and offer you a bundled package?
I worked as a cable modem tech while they were 'improving' their service just before they went bankrupt.
They had no metric for solving problems, but scored your raise/bonus impressively for keeping your call time down.
By the time they closed my call center, techs coming out of training were literally taught to tell people to reboot their computer and call back - which they would then do 3 or 4 times to the same customer.
That was bad enough, but the only other thing they knew how to do was upsell - their 2 week training had more days of sales training than actual tech training.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171470</id>
	<title>Re:This should have been done years ago</title>
	<author>warncke</author>
	<datestamp>1265047320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly right.  Cable companies rely on content providers for revenue, so they naturally differ to their interests.  Not to mention that Comcast owns cable channels, and is now buying NBC, or that they get tons of revenue off of PPV, all stuff that high speed internet, and high quality video on the web, would diminish revenue for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly right .
Cable companies rely on content providers for revenue , so they naturally differ to their interests .
Not to mention that Comcast owns cable channels , and is now buying NBC , or that they get tons of revenue off of PPV , all stuff that high speed internet , and high quality video on the web , would diminish revenue for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly right.
Cable companies rely on content providers for revenue, so they naturally differ to their interests.
Not to mention that Comcast owns cable channels, and is now buying NBC, or that they get tons of revenue off of PPV, all stuff that high speed internet, and high quality video on the web, would diminish revenue for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169946</id>
	<title>who the heck is you?! FCC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265042520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What ever happened to free market offerings.  If there's a market for slower speeds then isp's should be allowed to offer them.  I just hope I stash enough money in time before the government takes control of absolutely everything...cuz i'm f'n outta here as soon as I'm there.  USA is  such a police state now it SUCKS..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ever happened to free market offerings .
If there 's a market for slower speeds then isp 's should be allowed to offer them .
I just hope I stash enough money in time before the government takes control of absolutely everything...cuz i 'm f'n outta here as soon as I 'm there .
USA is such a police state now it SUCKS. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What ever happened to free market offerings.
If there's a market for slower speeds then isp's should be allowed to offer them.
I just hope I stash enough money in time before the government takes control of absolutely everything...cuz i'm f'n outta here as soon as I'm there.
USA is  such a police state now it SUCKS..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169932</id>
	<title>Interesting</title>
	<author>COMON$</author>
	<datestamp>1265042520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am all about the government keeping their hands off of things but the ISPs seem to be going the way of the Telcos,  they have the public by the testicles and are charging insane rates for terrible service.  Heck just this weekend I was running at 500Kbs and I pay for tier 2 RoadRunner service.  I routinely have to call for spotty access, sometimes things just drop.  Now I know a thing or two about networking so I can troubleshoot this but what about Joe 6 pack?  Our internet access has been pretty stagnant because no one wants to upgrade infrastucture because they can charge people out of the wazoo for sub par service. <p>
However, I think it would be better if the FCC would give tax benefits to companies that hit the minimum specs rather than fining them for not hitting the mark...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am all about the government keeping their hands off of things but the ISPs seem to be going the way of the Telcos , they have the public by the testicles and are charging insane rates for terrible service .
Heck just this weekend I was running at 500Kbs and I pay for tier 2 RoadRunner service .
I routinely have to call for spotty access , sometimes things just drop .
Now I know a thing or two about networking so I can troubleshoot this but what about Joe 6 pack ?
Our internet access has been pretty stagnant because no one wants to upgrade infrastucture because they can charge people out of the wazoo for sub par service .
However , I think it would be better if the FCC would give tax benefits to companies that hit the minimum specs rather than fining them for not hitting the mark.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am all about the government keeping their hands off of things but the ISPs seem to be going the way of the Telcos,  they have the public by the testicles and are charging insane rates for terrible service.
Heck just this weekend I was running at 500Kbs and I pay for tier 2 RoadRunner service.
I routinely have to call for spotty access, sometimes things just drop.
Now I know a thing or two about networking so I can troubleshoot this but what about Joe 6 pack?
Our internet access has been pretty stagnant because no one wants to upgrade infrastucture because they can charge people out of the wazoo for sub par service.
However, I think it would be better if the FCC would give tax benefits to companies that hit the minimum specs rather than fining them for not hitting the mark...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31172234</id>
	<title>Re:Already there</title>
	<author>King Coopa</author>
	<datestamp>1265049600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did you have to pay to run this line yourself or did your provider install it?  I'm curious to know the background to how you obtained a fiber connection while living in the sticks.  I grew up in the sticks and have considered this pretty much unavailable in my area for a very long time.
<br> <br>
On second thought I recall a private fiber line being installed right in front of my parents house about 20 years ago.  Apparently an energy company had an old pipeline running from Fort Worth to Oklahoma City that they now use as a conduit to run their communications through.  I had always hoped they would one day open it up for public use but that day has yet to come...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you have to pay to run this line yourself or did your provider install it ?
I 'm curious to know the background to how you obtained a fiber connection while living in the sticks .
I grew up in the sticks and have considered this pretty much unavailable in my area for a very long time .
On second thought I recall a private fiber line being installed right in front of my parents house about 20 years ago .
Apparently an energy company had an old pipeline running from Fort Worth to Oklahoma City that they now use as a conduit to run their communications through .
I had always hoped they would one day open it up for public use but that day has yet to come.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you have to pay to run this line yourself or did your provider install it?
I'm curious to know the background to how you obtained a fiber connection while living in the sticks.
I grew up in the sticks and have considered this pretty much unavailable in my area for a very long time.
On second thought I recall a private fiber line being installed right in front of my parents house about 20 years ago.
Apparently an energy company had an old pipeline running from Fort Worth to Oklahoma City that they now use as a conduit to run their communications through.
I had always hoped they would one day open it up for public use but that day has yet to come...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171606</id>
	<title>Re:That would be all well and good</title>
	<author>decoy256</author>
	<datestamp>1265047800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think "Market Forces" means removing the artificial barriers to new companies coming in to provide service options. You're right, when you only have one comm. provider, things suck. Diversity of options will benefit people far more than mandated 'this' or regulated 'that'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think " Market Forces " means removing the artificial barriers to new companies coming in to provide service options .
You 're right , when you only have one comm .
provider , things suck .
Diversity of options will benefit people far more than mandated 'this ' or regulated 'that' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think "Market Forces" means removing the artificial barriers to new companies coming in to provide service options.
You're right, when you only have one comm.
provider, things suck.
Diversity of options will benefit people far more than mandated 'this' or regulated 'that'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170454</id>
	<title>Re:We're going to MARS!</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1265044260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The hard part is getting "right of way" to lay the fiber.  Fiber isn't that expensive and compared to ISP prices it is almost cheaper to lay the fiber to your home yourself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The hard part is getting " right of way " to lay the fiber .
Fiber is n't that expensive and compared to ISP prices it is almost cheaper to lay the fiber to your home yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The hard part is getting "right of way" to lay the fiber.
Fiber isn't that expensive and compared to ISP prices it is almost cheaper to lay the fiber to your home yourself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171572</id>
	<title>Re:That would be all well and good</title>
	<author>Maltheus</author>
	<datestamp>1265047680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Market Forces" you mean let the ISPs charge whatever they want for poor service and very poor speed and uptime? Market forces only work when there is competition, in my area I got once choice.</p></div><p>So, I'm confused. Are market forces good or are they bad?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Market Forces " you mean let the ISPs charge whatever they want for poor service and very poor speed and uptime ?
Market forces only work when there is competition , in my area I got once choice.So , I 'm confused .
Are market forces good or are they bad ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Market Forces" you mean let the ISPs charge whatever they want for poor service and very poor speed and uptime?
Market forces only work when there is competition, in my area I got once choice.So, I'm confused.
Are market forces good or are they bad?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169666</id>
	<title>If the FCC wants to accelerate it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265041620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They should federalize all franchising so that local and state governments cannot limit which telecoms and cable companies can operate where.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They should federalize all franchising so that local and state governments can not limit which telecoms and cable companies can operate where .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should federalize all franchising so that local and state governments cannot limit which telecoms and cable companies can operate where.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171514</id>
	<title>Re:100Mbps minimum is a start...</title>
	<author>Lord Kano</author>
	<datestamp>1265047500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had 100Mbps in my house a decade ago. It's easy to wire a small area. It would be several orders of magnitude more difficult to wire all of the US than all of Sweden.</p><p>LK</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had 100Mbps in my house a decade ago .
It 's easy to wire a small area .
It would be several orders of magnitude more difficult to wire all of the US than all of Sweden.LK</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had 100Mbps in my house a decade ago.
It's easy to wire a small area.
It would be several orders of magnitude more difficult to wire all of the US than all of Sweden.LK</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31173436</id>
	<title>What for?</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1265053320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Really, how many HDTV channels can someone watch at once?  A full-rate HDTV channel is 19.4mb/s.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , how many HDTV channels can someone watch at once ?
A full-rate HDTV channel is 19.4mb/s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Really, how many HDTV channels can someone watch at once?
A full-rate HDTV channel is 19.4mb/s.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171264</id>
	<title>100 Mbps by 2020 Seems Very Realistic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265046840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I connected to the Internet over a phone line at 14.4 kbps in the mid 90s, which is was practically as fast as you could connect over an analog phone line to an ISP at the time. 15 years later, I connect to the Internet over cable at 12 Mbps. That's an average bandwidth increase of 57\% per year, compounded annually. Going from 12 Mbps to 100 Mbps in 10 years is an average increase of only 24\% per year, also compounded annually.</p><p>I think the government's effort would be better spent deregulating the industry. If ISPs were forced to compete with each other, prices would be lower, and service would probably be faster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I connected to the Internet over a phone line at 14.4 kbps in the mid 90s , which is was practically as fast as you could connect over an analog phone line to an ISP at the time .
15 years later , I connect to the Internet over cable at 12 Mbps .
That 's an average bandwidth increase of 57 \ % per year , compounded annually .
Going from 12 Mbps to 100 Mbps in 10 years is an average increase of only 24 \ % per year , also compounded annually.I think the government 's effort would be better spent deregulating the industry .
If ISPs were forced to compete with each other , prices would be lower , and service would probably be faster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I connected to the Internet over a phone line at 14.4 kbps in the mid 90s, which is was practically as fast as you could connect over an analog phone line to an ISP at the time.
15 years later, I connect to the Internet over cable at 12 Mbps.
That's an average bandwidth increase of 57\% per year, compounded annually.
Going from 12 Mbps to 100 Mbps in 10 years is an average increase of only 24\% per year, also compounded annually.I think the government's effort would be better spent deregulating the industry.
If ISPs were forced to compete with each other, prices would be lower, and service would probably be faster.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31188244</id>
	<title>Re:That would be all well and good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266523140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the only thing stopping you from tapping the neighboring town's police AP is that it's in the 4.9GHz public safety allocation... you need so go sell some security consulting to the neighboring town.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the only thing stopping you from tapping the neighboring town 's police AP is that it 's in the 4.9GHz public safety allocation... you need so go sell some security consulting to the neighboring town .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the only thing stopping you from tapping the neighboring town's police AP is that it's in the 4.9GHz public safety allocation... you need so go sell some security consulting to the neighboring town.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170976</id>
	<title>Re:More nanny State bullshit.</title>
	<author>myspace-cn</author>
	<datestamp>1265046000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really? My friend say's every 15 minutes his downloads STOP.  lol  And don't forget about DDoS, When it works though it is blast, I will give you that but from an strategic standpoint (and I'd argue even security) I will stick with my slower DSL's which still ain't nothing to sniffle at.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
My friend say 's every 15 minutes his downloads STOP .
lol And do n't forget about DDoS , When it works though it is blast , I will give you that but from an strategic standpoint ( and I 'd argue even security ) I will stick with my slower DSL 's which still ai n't nothing to sniffle at .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
My friend say's every 15 minutes his downloads STOP.
lol  And don't forget about DDoS, When it works though it is blast, I will give you that but from an strategic standpoint (and I'd argue even security) I will stick with my slower DSL's which still ain't nothing to sniffle at.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169584</id>
	<title>Just pass the amendments already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265041380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WTF is the FCC doing, making suggestions about my dealings with my local ISP over a link that doesn't cross state lines?</p><p>That rhetorical question has kind of a quaint ring to it.  Let's face it: America has certain expectations from their government, regardless of legal concerns.  So let's just legalize it.  I propose two constitutional amendments:</p><p>Congress shall have the power to do whatever they think is a good idea.  All previous amendments conflicting with this, are hereby repealed.</p><p>The right to be subject to physics shall not be infringed; other rights are negotiable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF is the FCC doing , making suggestions about my dealings with my local ISP over a link that does n't cross state lines ? That rhetorical question has kind of a quaint ring to it .
Let 's face it : America has certain expectations from their government , regardless of legal concerns .
So let 's just legalize it .
I propose two constitutional amendments : Congress shall have the power to do whatever they think is a good idea .
All previous amendments conflicting with this , are hereby repealed.The right to be subject to physics shall not be infringed ; other rights are negotiable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF is the FCC doing, making suggestions about my dealings with my local ISP over a link that doesn't cross state lines?That rhetorical question has kind of a quaint ring to it.
Let's face it: America has certain expectations from their government, regardless of legal concerns.
So let's just legalize it.
I propose two constitutional amendments:Congress shall have the power to do whatever they think is a good idea.
All previous amendments conflicting with this, are hereby repealed.The right to be subject to physics shall not be infringed; other rights are negotiable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31184056</id>
	<title>Re:Already there</title>
	<author>andereandre</author>
	<datestamp>1266507120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>in my town in NL, it is 39,95 euro for 100/100 Mbps, no caps, no limits.
The speeds are real (my torrents dl/ul with those speeds).
Triple play is 56.50. Local collective, non profit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>in my town in NL , it is 39,95 euro for 100/100 Mbps , no caps , no limits .
The speeds are real ( my torrents dl/ul with those speeds ) .
Triple play is 56.50 .
Local collective , non profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in my town in NL, it is 39,95 euro for 100/100 Mbps, no caps, no limits.
The speeds are real (my torrents dl/ul with those speeds).
Triple play is 56.50.
Local collective, non profit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169604</id>
	<title>DigiTechGuy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265041440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Umm... Where in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government to do this? Government's job does nto include manadating such asinine policies for private business, nor does it include running automobile companies (Lada anyone?). Government can do no good, can create nothing, can not get a net positive, ever. All it can do is take from one, slice a bit off the top, and give to another. This is bad.</p><p>Furthermore, if we were to ignore the Constitution as liberals and neocons do, this is just not feasible in any cost effective manner. It would put many internet providers out of business as they cannot be profitable and offer such services. This of small towns in teh boonies, in teh desert, in the mountains. it's just not realistic or profitable to get 100 Mb/s speeds to single houses or small communities in the middle of nowhere. So by putting these companies out of business from fines or whatever harsh measures government would inpose for non-compliance with the 100 Mb/s manadate there would be less competition. Less competition is bad, and results in increased prices and monopolies. Of course this is what government wants as it can lead to government takeover and government stake in many companies leading to an eventual single government provider for internet, just like the commies want with healthcare. Result is little if any competition, high costs, many inefficiencies and waste, and poor overall service at a greater expense.</p><p>Crazy laws like this are a downward spiral towards everyone being worse off and paying more.</p><p>Captcha: idealism - oh the irony</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm... Where in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government to do this ?
Government 's job does nto include manadating such asinine policies for private business , nor does it include running automobile companies ( Lada anyone ? ) .
Government can do no good , can create nothing , can not get a net positive , ever .
All it can do is take from one , slice a bit off the top , and give to another .
This is bad.Furthermore , if we were to ignore the Constitution as liberals and neocons do , this is just not feasible in any cost effective manner .
It would put many internet providers out of business as they can not be profitable and offer such services .
This of small towns in teh boonies , in teh desert , in the mountains .
it 's just not realistic or profitable to get 100 Mb/s speeds to single houses or small communities in the middle of nowhere .
So by putting these companies out of business from fines or whatever harsh measures government would inpose for non-compliance with the 100 Mb/s manadate there would be less competition .
Less competition is bad , and results in increased prices and monopolies .
Of course this is what government wants as it can lead to government takeover and government stake in many companies leading to an eventual single government provider for internet , just like the commies want with healthcare .
Result is little if any competition , high costs , many inefficiencies and waste , and poor overall service at a greater expense.Crazy laws like this are a downward spiral towards everyone being worse off and paying more.Captcha : idealism - oh the irony</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm... Where in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government to do this?
Government's job does nto include manadating such asinine policies for private business, nor does it include running automobile companies (Lada anyone?).
Government can do no good, can create nothing, can not get a net positive, ever.
All it can do is take from one, slice a bit off the top, and give to another.
This is bad.Furthermore, if we were to ignore the Constitution as liberals and neocons do, this is just not feasible in any cost effective manner.
It would put many internet providers out of business as they cannot be profitable and offer such services.
This of small towns in teh boonies, in teh desert, in the mountains.
it's just not realistic or profitable to get 100 Mb/s speeds to single houses or small communities in the middle of nowhere.
So by putting these companies out of business from fines or whatever harsh measures government would inpose for non-compliance with the 100 Mb/s manadate there would be less competition.
Less competition is bad, and results in increased prices and monopolies.
Of course this is what government wants as it can lead to government takeover and government stake in many companies leading to an eventual single government provider for internet, just like the commies want with healthcare.
Result is little if any competition, high costs, many inefficiencies and waste, and poor overall service at a greater expense.Crazy laws like this are a downward spiral towards everyone being worse off and paying more.Captcha: idealism - oh the irony</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169528</id>
	<title>We're going to MARS!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265041200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the IT equivalent of Bush's "We're going to Mars" announcement.</p><p>It will be followed by actions which will make it impossible. (The equivalent of cutting Nasa's budget and programs)</p><p>So my money is on...reducing competition, letting infrastructure fail, and killing net neutrality for the Trifecta.</p><p>Who'll give me Vegas odds on these?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the IT equivalent of Bush 's " We 're going to Mars " announcement.It will be followed by actions which will make it impossible .
( The equivalent of cutting Nasa 's budget and programs ) So my money is on...reducing competition , letting infrastructure fail , and killing net neutrality for the Trifecta.Who 'll give me Vegas odds on these ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the IT equivalent of Bush's "We're going to Mars" announcement.It will be followed by actions which will make it impossible.
(The equivalent of cutting Nasa's budget and programs)So my money is on...reducing competition, letting infrastructure fail, and killing net neutrality for the Trifecta.Who'll give me Vegas odds on these?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169514</id>
	<title>Easy as pie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265041140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They do it in the most dense areas. The big cities where fiber is already running and put users on it.... that is cake. Now for us out in the sticks if we can get 1.5mb by 2020, that would be a great start.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They do it in the most dense areas .
The big cities where fiber is already running and put users on it.... that is cake .
Now for us out in the sticks if we can get 1.5mb by 2020 , that would be a great start .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They do it in the most dense areas.
The big cities where fiber is already running and put users on it.... that is cake.
Now for us out in the sticks if we can get 1.5mb by 2020, that would be a great start.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171398</id>
	<title>Re:More nanny State bullshit.</title>
	<author>msu320</author>
	<datestamp>1265047140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Considering <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2160p" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">2160p</a> [wikipedia.org] TV's will have been shipping for 4 years by 2020 and will require 4x the bandwidth needed for 1080p (about 45megabits at 24fps). Considering 2160p may not even be the highest possible specs for viewing in 10 years (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super\_Hi-Vision" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">4320p</a> [wikipedia.org] and
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/28k\_RED\_CAMERA.png" title="wikimedia.org" rel="nofollow">9334p</a> [wikimedia.org])
100mbits may likely not even end up being enough by 2020.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering 2160p [ wikipedia.org ] TV 's will have been shipping for 4 years by 2020 and will require 4x the bandwidth needed for 1080p ( about 45megabits at 24fps ) .
Considering 2160p may not even be the highest possible specs for viewing in 10 years ( see 4320p [ wikipedia.org ] and 9334p [ wikimedia.org ] ) 100mbits may likely not even end up being enough by 2020 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering 2160p [wikipedia.org] TV's will have been shipping for 4 years by 2020 and will require 4x the bandwidth needed for 1080p (about 45megabits at 24fps).
Considering 2160p may not even be the highest possible specs for viewing in 10 years (see 4320p [wikipedia.org] and
9334p [wikimedia.org])
100mbits may likely not even end up being enough by 2020.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170688</id>
	<title>Re:Why complain</title>
	<author>pitdingo</author>
	<datestamp>1265045100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Socialist incentives voted in by Republican controlled government will bankrupt the USA.  Oh wait...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Socialist incentives voted in by Republican controlled government will bankrupt the USA .
Oh wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Socialist incentives voted in by Republican controlled government will bankrupt the USA.
Oh wait...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31173212</id>
	<title>Re:cap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265052600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>2 gig may just be enough pr0n to last a month, however...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>2 gig may just be enough pr0n to last a month , however.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2 gig may just be enough pr0n to last a month, however...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31172072</id>
	<title>Re:This should have been done years ago</title>
	<author>NicknamesAreStupid</author>
	<datestamp>1265049120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Telcos have a large legacy, over a century old.  They lay cable expecting it to last 50 years, a business decision.  It made sense when all it carried was 4KHz voice traffic for 80 years.  If you look how long it took them to get rid of all the switchboards (where they saved a fortune in labor cost), you can understand their "bell head" mentality about wiring, which will not save them any working capital to replace functional copper with high-bandwidth fiber to the b-box.  They can make almost as much money providing DSL at 5Mbps over existing copper.  The alternative would be to make the wiring infrastructure public, like the freeway system.
<br> <br>
Imagine if we had to replace the Interstate freeway system, a public infrastructure.  Who would vote to pay for that, even if you could go 650 miles per hour?  As tempting as it might sound, would each of you pay $1,000,000?  Not me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Telcos have a large legacy , over a century old .
They lay cable expecting it to last 50 years , a business decision .
It made sense when all it carried was 4KHz voice traffic for 80 years .
If you look how long it took them to get rid of all the switchboards ( where they saved a fortune in labor cost ) , you can understand their " bell head " mentality about wiring , which will not save them any working capital to replace functional copper with high-bandwidth fiber to the b-box .
They can make almost as much money providing DSL at 5Mbps over existing copper .
The alternative would be to make the wiring infrastructure public , like the freeway system .
Imagine if we had to replace the Interstate freeway system , a public infrastructure .
Who would vote to pay for that , even if you could go 650 miles per hour ?
As tempting as it might sound , would each of you pay $ 1,000,000 ?
Not me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Telcos have a large legacy, over a century old.
They lay cable expecting it to last 50 years, a business decision.
It made sense when all it carried was 4KHz voice traffic for 80 years.
If you look how long it took them to get rid of all the switchboards (where they saved a fortune in labor cost), you can understand their "bell head" mentality about wiring, which will not save them any working capital to replace functional copper with high-bandwidth fiber to the b-box.
They can make almost as much money providing DSL at 5Mbps over existing copper.
The alternative would be to make the wiring infrastructure public, like the freeway system.
Imagine if we had to replace the Interstate freeway system, a public infrastructure.
Who would vote to pay for that, even if you could go 650 miles per hour?
As tempting as it might sound, would each of you pay $1,000,000?
Not me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170512</id>
	<title>Re:That would be all well and good</title>
	<author>TheHappyMailAdmin</author>
	<datestamp>1265044500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Free markets work when the markets are truly free, which the US telecom market is not.  Service is broken into local monopolies, so before declaring that the market economy has failed, remember that in this area we aren't working with one.</p><p>We have exactly three options regarding the future of broadband in the US: do nothing, regulate or deregulate.  The telecoms want us to do nothing since it lets them maintain the status quo with local monopolies and move at their own pace with very little pressure.  If we want things to move faster than the pace the providers set for us we have to regulate more (remember, we're already regulating!) and force providers to do more, or deregulate and hope that competition forces things to move faster from the bottom up.  My opinion is that the only thing the providers fight harder than regulations on what services they have to provide is a move to truly deregulate the markets, look at the fight between Comcast and AT&amp;T in Illinois over U-Verse service as an interesting case study of that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Free markets work when the markets are truly free , which the US telecom market is not .
Service is broken into local monopolies , so before declaring that the market economy has failed , remember that in this area we are n't working with one.We have exactly three options regarding the future of broadband in the US : do nothing , regulate or deregulate .
The telecoms want us to do nothing since it lets them maintain the status quo with local monopolies and move at their own pace with very little pressure .
If we want things to move faster than the pace the providers set for us we have to regulate more ( remember , we 're already regulating !
) and force providers to do more , or deregulate and hope that competition forces things to move faster from the bottom up .
My opinion is that the only thing the providers fight harder than regulations on what services they have to provide is a move to truly deregulate the markets , look at the fight between Comcast and AT&amp;T in Illinois over U-Verse service as an interesting case study of that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Free markets work when the markets are truly free, which the US telecom market is not.
Service is broken into local monopolies, so before declaring that the market economy has failed, remember that in this area we aren't working with one.We have exactly three options regarding the future of broadband in the US: do nothing, regulate or deregulate.
The telecoms want us to do nothing since it lets them maintain the status quo with local monopolies and move at their own pace with very little pressure.
If we want things to move faster than the pace the providers set for us we have to regulate more (remember, we're already regulating!
) and force providers to do more, or deregulate and hope that competition forces things to move faster from the bottom up.
My opinion is that the only thing the providers fight harder than regulations on what services they have to provide is a move to truly deregulate the markets, look at the fight between Comcast and AT&amp;T in Illinois over U-Verse service as an interesting case study of that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170368</id>
	<title>Re:Not without significant infrastructure change..</title>
	<author>geekmux</author>
	<datestamp>1265043960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>100 Mbps?  Does the FCC not realize that 99\% of all residences only have copper cabling to them (either twisted pair or coax)?  It is impossible to get 100 Mbps out of such a transmission medium over any meaningful distance.  The only solution to this would be to overbuild the entire telecommunications infrastructure with fiber optic cable.  Phone and Cable companies aren't going to like that--they already have billions of dollars invested in the current copper plant out there.</p><p>Is 100 Mbps feasible?  Yes.  Is it feasible by 2020?  Yes, but certainly not to everyone.</p></div><p>OK, first of all, I'm thinking your "99\%" estimate is a bit out of whack.  Not only am I seeing every NEW subdivision layed out with fiber everywhere, but they're also working quickly to retrofit a LOT of areas with fiber.</p><p>Also, my cable provider in the area is offering speeds upwards of 40Mb over coax now, so giving technology another decade, I'm pretty confident we'll be able to mux a 100Mb stream across existing coax infrastructure, if we can't already do it today.</p><p>Lastly, the "billions of dollars invested" with regards to "current" copper?  Don't you mean 40-year old copper?  If any telcos are out there laying NEW copper instead of fiber, they're insane.  You can't really sit here and talk about "billions" in PAST spend when referring to future outlay.  Water under the bridge, and I'm QUITE certain the telcos made their billions back on the 40-year old copper runs.  Sorry, but the taxes I paid to my telcos for years, along with the monopoly they continue to carry into the fiber world, I shed NO tears.  It's not like we as customers won't eventually be paying for whatever they invest in infrastructure anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>100 Mbps ?
Does the FCC not realize that 99 \ % of all residences only have copper cabling to them ( either twisted pair or coax ) ?
It is impossible to get 100 Mbps out of such a transmission medium over any meaningful distance .
The only solution to this would be to overbuild the entire telecommunications infrastructure with fiber optic cable .
Phone and Cable companies are n't going to like that--they already have billions of dollars invested in the current copper plant out there.Is 100 Mbps feasible ?
Yes. Is it feasible by 2020 ?
Yes , but certainly not to everyone.OK , first of all , I 'm thinking your " 99 \ % " estimate is a bit out of whack .
Not only am I seeing every NEW subdivision layed out with fiber everywhere , but they 're also working quickly to retrofit a LOT of areas with fiber.Also , my cable provider in the area is offering speeds upwards of 40Mb over coax now , so giving technology another decade , I 'm pretty confident we 'll be able to mux a 100Mb stream across existing coax infrastructure , if we ca n't already do it today.Lastly , the " billions of dollars invested " with regards to " current " copper ?
Do n't you mean 40-year old copper ?
If any telcos are out there laying NEW copper instead of fiber , they 're insane .
You ca n't really sit here and talk about " billions " in PAST spend when referring to future outlay .
Water under the bridge , and I 'm QUITE certain the telcos made their billions back on the 40-year old copper runs .
Sorry , but the taxes I paid to my telcos for years , along with the monopoly they continue to carry into the fiber world , I shed NO tears .
It 's not like we as customers wo n't eventually be paying for whatever they invest in infrastructure anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>100 Mbps?
Does the FCC not realize that 99\% of all residences only have copper cabling to them (either twisted pair or coax)?
It is impossible to get 100 Mbps out of such a transmission medium over any meaningful distance.
The only solution to this would be to overbuild the entire telecommunications infrastructure with fiber optic cable.
Phone and Cable companies aren't going to like that--they already have billions of dollars invested in the current copper plant out there.Is 100 Mbps feasible?
Yes.  Is it feasible by 2020?
Yes, but certainly not to everyone.OK, first of all, I'm thinking your "99\%" estimate is a bit out of whack.
Not only am I seeing every NEW subdivision layed out with fiber everywhere, but they're also working quickly to retrofit a LOT of areas with fiber.Also, my cable provider in the area is offering speeds upwards of 40Mb over coax now, so giving technology another decade, I'm pretty confident we'll be able to mux a 100Mb stream across existing coax infrastructure, if we can't already do it today.Lastly, the "billions of dollars invested" with regards to "current" copper?
Don't you mean 40-year old copper?
If any telcos are out there laying NEW copper instead of fiber, they're insane.
You can't really sit here and talk about "billions" in PAST spend when referring to future outlay.
Water under the bridge, and I'm QUITE certain the telcos made their billions back on the 40-year old copper runs.
Sorry, but the taxes I paid to my telcos for years, along with the monopoly they continue to carry into the fiber world, I shed NO tears.
It's not like we as customers won't eventually be paying for whatever they invest in infrastructure anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171936</id>
	<title>We already did.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265048700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We paid for this with the Telecom Act of 1984.</p><p>We paid for it again in the '90s.</p><p>We paid for it again in the '00's (aughts?, naughts?).</p><p>Maybe now it is time for them to deliver.</p><p>If not, legislate them into hell and let the municipalities take over like water and electricity.</p><p>Not so sure I want my government to be the first one to touch my data (instant man in the middle), but the telcos/cablecos give the feds anything they want, so it is not much different.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We paid for this with the Telecom Act of 1984.We paid for it again in the '90s.We paid for it again in the '00 's ( aughts ? , naughts ?
) .Maybe now it is time for them to deliver.If not , legislate them into hell and let the municipalities take over like water and electricity.Not so sure I want my government to be the first one to touch my data ( instant man in the middle ) , but the telcos/cablecos give the feds anything they want , so it is not much different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We paid for this with the Telecom Act of 1984.We paid for it again in the '90s.We paid for it again in the '00's (aughts?, naughts?
).Maybe now it is time for them to deliver.If not, legislate them into hell and let the municipalities take over like water and electricity.Not so sure I want my government to be the first one to touch my data (instant man in the middle), but the telcos/cablecos give the feds anything they want, so it is not much different.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31181942</id>
	<title>Consumer isn't really the problem</title>
	<author>LostMyBeaver</author>
	<datestamp>1266490080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First off, just to join the pissing contest, here in Oslo, Norway 100 up and down is $200 a month which given cost of living adjustments is like $120 a month there. Pretty sad that you guys don't get symmetric bandwidth. It's just their way of keeping you from sharing files.<br><br>The real problem isn't their ability to deliver to the consumer premises. VDSL2 already does it over copper, in fact, it can hit 250MBit/sec. Of course single-mode fiber can already handle gigabit over a single strand in last mile installations.<br><br>The problem IS being able to deliver bandwidth to the servers which need to deliver to the customer. 100MBit/s doesn't sound like much until you start watching 50MBit/sec video streams from online distributors. Or when Apple releases a new iPhone patch and the entire world rushes to their web site. Their web servers can't keep up with that kind of traffic. Machines WILL be faster then and servers WILL be much much more powerful, but places currently sporting 10GBit/sec fiber will need Tb/sec connections to keep up.<br><br>What is definitely more important would be the requirement for multicast support. With multicast, it becomes possible for high-bandwidth streams to be distributed over the backbone a lot easier. Multicast is probably the #1 improvement that should be government mandated before forcing ISPs to offer huge bandwidth pipes to the house.<br><br>Another thing I'd like to see is that the government requires that neighbors passing through a single switch should be allowed to communicate at port-speed to one another over their networks. So, while you're connection to the internet is 10MBit/sec, it should be possible to communicate with your neighbor at gigabit speeds. Limiting the bandwidth to other ports within the switch is stupid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First off , just to join the pissing contest , here in Oslo , Norway 100 up and down is $ 200 a month which given cost of living adjustments is like $ 120 a month there .
Pretty sad that you guys do n't get symmetric bandwidth .
It 's just their way of keeping you from sharing files.The real problem is n't their ability to deliver to the consumer premises .
VDSL2 already does it over copper , in fact , it can hit 250MBit/sec .
Of course single-mode fiber can already handle gigabit over a single strand in last mile installations.The problem IS being able to deliver bandwidth to the servers which need to deliver to the customer .
100MBit/s does n't sound like much until you start watching 50MBit/sec video streams from online distributors .
Or when Apple releases a new iPhone patch and the entire world rushes to their web site .
Their web servers ca n't keep up with that kind of traffic .
Machines WILL be faster then and servers WILL be much much more powerful , but places currently sporting 10GBit/sec fiber will need Tb/sec connections to keep up.What is definitely more important would be the requirement for multicast support .
With multicast , it becomes possible for high-bandwidth streams to be distributed over the backbone a lot easier .
Multicast is probably the # 1 improvement that should be government mandated before forcing ISPs to offer huge bandwidth pipes to the house.Another thing I 'd like to see is that the government requires that neighbors passing through a single switch should be allowed to communicate at port-speed to one another over their networks .
So , while you 're connection to the internet is 10MBit/sec , it should be possible to communicate with your neighbor at gigabit speeds .
Limiting the bandwidth to other ports within the switch is stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First off, just to join the pissing contest, here in Oslo, Norway 100 up and down is $200 a month which given cost of living adjustments is like $120 a month there.
Pretty sad that you guys don't get symmetric bandwidth.
It's just their way of keeping you from sharing files.The real problem isn't their ability to deliver to the consumer premises.
VDSL2 already does it over copper, in fact, it can hit 250MBit/sec.
Of course single-mode fiber can already handle gigabit over a single strand in last mile installations.The problem IS being able to deliver bandwidth to the servers which need to deliver to the customer.
100MBit/s doesn't sound like much until you start watching 50MBit/sec video streams from online distributors.
Or when Apple releases a new iPhone patch and the entire world rushes to their web site.
Their web servers can't keep up with that kind of traffic.
Machines WILL be faster then and servers WILL be much much more powerful, but places currently sporting 10GBit/sec fiber will need Tb/sec connections to keep up.What is definitely more important would be the requirement for multicast support.
With multicast, it becomes possible for high-bandwidth streams to be distributed over the backbone a lot easier.
Multicast is probably the #1 improvement that should be government mandated before forcing ISPs to offer huge bandwidth pipes to the house.Another thing I'd like to see is that the government requires that neighbors passing through a single switch should be allowed to communicate at port-speed to one another over their networks.
So, while you're connection to the internet is 10MBit/sec, it should be possible to communicate with your neighbor at gigabit speeds.
Limiting the bandwidth to other ports within the switch is stupid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169740</id>
	<title>Why complain</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1265041860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the mid-90s the Telecom industry was given <a href="http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit\_20070810\_002683.html" title="pbs.org">200 billion</a> [pbs.org] dollars to roll out 45 megabit internet across the country.  Nothing ever came of it, and the telecom industry got to pocket that $200 billion.</p><p>Sounds to me that the telecoms should know a good thing when they hear it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the mid-90s the Telecom industry was given 200 billion [ pbs.org ] dollars to roll out 45 megabit internet across the country .
Nothing ever came of it , and the telecom industry got to pocket that $ 200 billion.Sounds to me that the telecoms should know a good thing when they hear it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the mid-90s the Telecom industry was given 200 billion [pbs.org] dollars to roll out 45 megabit internet across the country.
Nothing ever came of it, and the telecom industry got to pocket that $200 billion.Sounds to me that the telecoms should know a good thing when they hear it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170622</id>
	<title>Step One</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265044920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The FCC needs to untie the hands of Municipalities.  Countless Cities would deploy their own public fiber network and offer it as a public utility.  They can't now because the telco's would(and have) sued them on non-complete clauses (and such).  Get the ISPs out of the infrastructure business and let the Cities handle the last mile.  Then, wealthy communities will pay for their own.  A government subsidy on production of fiber optic stuff might help.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The FCC needs to untie the hands of Municipalities .
Countless Cities would deploy their own public fiber network and offer it as a public utility .
They ca n't now because the telco 's would ( and have ) sued them on non-complete clauses ( and such ) .
Get the ISPs out of the infrastructure business and let the Cities handle the last mile .
Then , wealthy communities will pay for their own .
A government subsidy on production of fiber optic stuff might help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FCC needs to untie the hands of Municipalities.
Countless Cities would deploy their own public fiber network and offer it as a public utility.
They can't now because the telco's would(and have) sued them on non-complete clauses (and such).
Get the ISPs out of the infrastructure business and let the Cities handle the last mile.
Then, wealthy communities will pay for their own.
A government subsidy on production of fiber optic stuff might help.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31176518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31175572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31176110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31178880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31174696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31173510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31176104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31174226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31172234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31173416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31185312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31184056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31174378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31178052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31181468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31200192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31178988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31173098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31186496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31179602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31172032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31173728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31173114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31178930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31177004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31173212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31188244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31172072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31172404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31186586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31174090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31172304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31181942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_1411227_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31176510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1411227.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169584
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1411227.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171514
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1411227.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170044
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1411227.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170654
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31181468
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31172032
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170696
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1411227.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171626
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31185312
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31175572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1411227.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169954
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1411227.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169536
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1411227.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169548
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1411227.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31172234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170664
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31176510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31186586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170004
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31173510
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171668
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31176110
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31184056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31181942
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1411227.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170368
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31178988
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1411227.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31174696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31178880
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1411227.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169530
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1411227.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170062
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1411227.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169666
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1411227.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170610
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1411227.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170780
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1411227.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171398
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1411227.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170082
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1411227.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31173212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31174090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31174378
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1411227.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169732
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171606
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170548
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170512
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170020
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171936
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170208
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171546
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169998
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171040
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171970
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31172404
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170562
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170918
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31188244
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31200192
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171760
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171394
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171670
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31172304
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171020
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31177004
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170756
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1411227.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169514
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1411227.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169540
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1411227.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170622
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1411227.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31173728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31176518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31178052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31174226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31172072
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1411227.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31171006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31173098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31176104
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1411227.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31173922
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1411227.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170190
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1411227.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170174
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1411227.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31179602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31178930
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_1411227.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31169916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31173416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31173114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31186496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_1411227.31170508
</commentlist>
</conversation>
