<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_16_1147221</id>
	<title>FCC's Broadband Plan May Cost You Money</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1268741220000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>At ten minutes past midnight the FCC released their National Broadband Plan. Judging by the <a href="http://news.google.com/news/more?pz=1&amp;cf=all&amp;ncl=dgk56bz476ngs4M-tFbBpQ4BmYzCM&amp;topic=h">available coverage</a>, few reporters spent the night poring over it. The BBC at least posted something in the morning hours, but it <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8569157.stm">quotes Enderle</a>, so that gives you some idea of its sourcing. Business Week notes the plan's <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-16/fcc-broadband-plan-raises-broadcasters-alarm-wireless-cheer.html">cool (not to say frigid) reception among broadcasters</a>. Dave Burstein of FastNet News did some real digging. His take as of 4:00 am Eastern time is that the <a href="http://www.fastnetnews.com/dslprime/42-d/2665-broadband-plan-4-am-tuesday">plan will cost most Americans money</a>, and won't provide much if any relief to the poor. We'll see many more details and nuances emerge over the day. <b>Update: 03/16 19:53 GMT</b> by <b> <a href="http://slashdot.org/~kdawson/">KD</a> </b>: <a href="http://download.broadband.gov/plan/national-broadband-plan.pdf">The FCC plan</a> (PDF) is here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At ten minutes past midnight the FCC released their National Broadband Plan .
Judging by the available coverage , few reporters spent the night poring over it .
The BBC at least posted something in the morning hours , but it quotes Enderle , so that gives you some idea of its sourcing .
Business Week notes the plan 's cool ( not to say frigid ) reception among broadcasters .
Dave Burstein of FastNet News did some real digging .
His take as of 4 : 00 am Eastern time is that the plan will cost most Americans money , and wo n't provide much if any relief to the poor .
We 'll see many more details and nuances emerge over the day .
Update : 03/16 19 : 53 GMT by KD : The FCC plan ( PDF ) is here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At ten minutes past midnight the FCC released their National Broadband Plan.
Judging by the available coverage, few reporters spent the night poring over it.
The BBC at least posted something in the morning hours, but it quotes Enderle, so that gives you some idea of its sourcing.
Business Week notes the plan's cool (not to say frigid) reception among broadcasters.
Dave Burstein of FastNet News did some real digging.
His take as of 4:00 am Eastern time is that the plan will cost most Americans money, and won't provide much if any relief to the poor.
We'll see many more details and nuances emerge over the day.
Update: 03/16 19:53 GMT by  KD : The FCC plan (PDF) is here.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31503836</id>
	<title>Re:Governments never reduce costs</title>
	<author>Bill\_the\_Engineer</author>
	<datestamp>1268749740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want broadband data service, you need to move closer to a metropolitan area. Why should the government be in the business of subsidizing people who choose to live in the middle of nowhere, yet feel entitled to enjoy the same benefits of those who live in urban areas?
</p><p>This is an example of why our debt is so high.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want broadband data service , you need to move closer to a metropolitan area .
Why should the government be in the business of subsidizing people who choose to live in the middle of nowhere , yet feel entitled to enjoy the same benefits of those who live in urban areas ?
This is an example of why our debt is so high .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want broadband data service, you need to move closer to a metropolitan area.
Why should the government be in the business of subsidizing people who choose to live in the middle of nowhere, yet feel entitled to enjoy the same benefits of those who live in urban areas?
This is an example of why our debt is so high.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493878</id>
	<title>Death of broadcasting?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268746920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When they talk about the warring parties, there doesn't seem to be enough discussion of the death of free (ad-driven or public, but no access fee) broadcasting.  Much of the focus, with some lip service to expanding access to broadband, seems to be on wringing as much profit out of the limited spectrum as possible rather than the maximum benefit to all of us from what is basically a natural resource.  I don't like the idea of private industry snapping up control and then renting it back to us.  How long before the old rabbit ear antennas are quaint and $50/month service is required?  The Internet is a vital alternative for many things, but it is far from cheap or independent itself.  I for one am feeling more and more "owned" by the access providers and would like to hear a lot more about ubiquitous free Wifi -- in the cities and the boondocks -- and such, as common and cheap as electricity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When they talk about the warring parties , there does n't seem to be enough discussion of the death of free ( ad-driven or public , but no access fee ) broadcasting .
Much of the focus , with some lip service to expanding access to broadband , seems to be on wringing as much profit out of the limited spectrum as possible rather than the maximum benefit to all of us from what is basically a natural resource .
I do n't like the idea of private industry snapping up control and then renting it back to us .
How long before the old rabbit ear antennas are quaint and $ 50/month service is required ?
The Internet is a vital alternative for many things , but it is far from cheap or independent itself .
I for one am feeling more and more " owned " by the access providers and would like to hear a lot more about ubiquitous free Wifi -- in the cities and the boondocks -- and such , as common and cheap as electricity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When they talk about the warring parties, there doesn't seem to be enough discussion of the death of free (ad-driven or public, but no access fee) broadcasting.
Much of the focus, with some lip service to expanding access to broadband, seems to be on wringing as much profit out of the limited spectrum as possible rather than the maximum benefit to all of us from what is basically a natural resource.
I don't like the idea of private industry snapping up control and then renting it back to us.
How long before the old rabbit ear antennas are quaint and $50/month service is required?
The Internet is a vital alternative for many things, but it is far from cheap or independent itself.
I for one am feeling more and more "owned" by the access providers and would like to hear a lot more about ubiquitous free Wifi -- in the cities and the boondocks -- and such, as common and cheap as electricity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495052</id>
	<title>Re:What about the backbones and the servers?</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1268752380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;I now have a 10000kbs/2000kbs Internet connection - not blazingly fast by any means</p><p>Not fast?  Not fast???  I only have 750/128 you insensitive clod!<br>
&nbsp; <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>But seriously I wouldn't know what to do with myself with that kind of speed.  I already watch free TV shows and download movies (shhh) off the net with my "slow" 750k connection.  What on earth would I do with a 10,000 line?  Feels like overkill, and while you say "not that fast" it feels VERY fast to my mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; I now have a 10000kbs/2000kbs Internet connection - not blazingly fast by any meansNot fast ?
Not fast ? ? ?
I only have 750/128 you insensitive clod !
  ; - ) But seriously I would n't know what to do with myself with that kind of speed .
I already watch free TV shows and download movies ( shhh ) off the net with my " slow " 750k connection .
What on earth would I do with a 10,000 line ?
Feels like overkill , and while you say " not that fast " it feels VERY fast to my mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;I now have a 10000kbs/2000kbs Internet connection - not blazingly fast by any meansNot fast?
Not fast???
I only have 750/128 you insensitive clod!
   ;-)But seriously I wouldn't know what to do with myself with that kind of speed.
I already watch free TV shows and download movies (shhh) off the net with my "slow" 750k connection.
What on earth would I do with a 10,000 line?
Feels like overkill, and while you say "not that fast" it feels VERY fast to my mind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31497116</id>
	<title>Re:Check your links</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268759700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And the summary doesn't give me any more information than the headline does.</p><p>Am I mistaken or, shouldn't the summary, kinda, ya know, summarize the article instead of restating the headline?</p><p>Great summary kdawson - I have no idea what the FCC's plan is, why it may cost me money or how much money it may cost me.</p><p>I post A/C, so if you think I'm gonna go so far as to RTFA, kdawson, you're crazy.</p><p>You're making it very difficult for me to post a knee-jerk reaction to your sensationalist headline.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And the summary does n't give me any more information than the headline does.Am I mistaken or , should n't the summary , kinda , ya know , summarize the article instead of restating the headline ? Great summary kdawson - I have no idea what the FCC 's plan is , why it may cost me money or how much money it may cost me.I post A/C , so if you think I 'm gon na go so far as to RTFA , kdawson , you 're crazy.You 're making it very difficult for me to post a knee-jerk reaction to your sensationalist headline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the summary doesn't give me any more information than the headline does.Am I mistaken or, shouldn't the summary, kinda, ya know, summarize the article instead of restating the headline?Great summary kdawson - I have no idea what the FCC's plan is, why it may cost me money or how much money it may cost me.I post A/C, so if you think I'm gonna go so far as to RTFA, kdawson, you're crazy.You're making it very difficult for me to post a knee-jerk reaction to your sensationalist headline.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494216</id>
	<title>Re:Government Services</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268748840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually a communist paradise DOES cost money.  You earn it - the government takes it and "serves" you with free grocery stores (with long lines), free housing (with 10 people squeezed inside), free apartments (the size of a dorm room), and on and on.  Just see Soviet Union circa 1980.</p><p>As for this broaband plan:</p><p>I still don't see why it's my responsibility to fund a fiber optic hookup for some farmer living in the middle of noplace (the Wyoming/Idaho border for example).  There's a much cheaper way to get broadband out there, and it will be done in typical free market efficiency (read: as cheap as possible), rather than through the corruption of government employees that spend most of their day surfing the net (see my job at the FAA):</p><p>- Congress mandates that Verizon/ATT/whoever must provide DSL to any customer that requests it.<br>- WAIT.  If the farmer is happy with dialup, then he keep dialup, but if he requests highspeed then:<br>- Verizon installs a DSLAM.  The phone lines are already there. so it should be a simple 1-2 day job.  Like so: Fiber--&gt; DSLAM--&gt; serves neighborhood/rural district</p><p>If the local company balks at the expense, remind them they received billions from the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and suggest they use that money to buy those ~$1000 DSLAMs.  I think that's a MUCH better solution than some Amtrak-style government program.  I certainly can't afford to have my taxes raised (again).  And my children/grandchildren can't afford to payoff the soon-to-be ~$200,000 per home government debt*.  We need to spend LESS money, not more, else we'll soon endup like Greece or Iceland.<br>.</p><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;Everybody wants services (public schools, Medicare, military, etc),</p><p>Not correct.  I don't want a government-run school that teaches me kids to sing, "Barack Hussein Obama (or George Dubya Bush).  He'll save our land.  Mmmm mmmm mmmm".  Neither do I want Medisuck or social insecurity that increases healthcare costs (paperwork and labor).    In my opinion ALL of this should be eliminated and replaced with private, customer-run services with a "safety net" to help the bottom 2-3\% that can't afford to pay the bill.   So..... definitely not "everyone" as you claimed.</p><p>I'm pro-choice.<br>Government is anti-choice.<br>It's monopoly.<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>*<br>* Estimated debt per home in 2020 according to the CBO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually a communist paradise DOES cost money .
You earn it - the government takes it and " serves " you with free grocery stores ( with long lines ) , free housing ( with 10 people squeezed inside ) , free apartments ( the size of a dorm room ) , and on and on .
Just see Soviet Union circa 1980.As for this broaband plan : I still do n't see why it 's my responsibility to fund a fiber optic hookup for some farmer living in the middle of noplace ( the Wyoming/Idaho border for example ) .
There 's a much cheaper way to get broadband out there , and it will be done in typical free market efficiency ( read : as cheap as possible ) , rather than through the corruption of government employees that spend most of their day surfing the net ( see my job at the FAA ) : - Congress mandates that Verizon/ATT/whoever must provide DSL to any customer that requests it.- WAIT .
If the farmer is happy with dialup , then he keep dialup , but if he requests highspeed then : - Verizon installs a DSLAM .
The phone lines are already there .
so it should be a simple 1-2 day job .
Like so : Fiber-- &gt; DSLAM-- &gt; serves neighborhood/rural districtIf the local company balks at the expense , remind them they received billions from the 1996 Telecommunications Act , and suggest they use that money to buy those ~ $ 1000 DSLAMs .
I think that 's a MUCH better solution than some Amtrak-style government program .
I certainly ca n't afford to have my taxes raised ( again ) .
And my children/grandchildren ca n't afford to payoff the soon-to-be ~ $ 200,000 per home government debt * .
We need to spend LESS money , not more , else we 'll soon endup like Greece or Iceland.. &gt; &gt; &gt; Everybody wants services ( public schools , Medicare , military , etc ) ,Not correct .
I do n't want a government-run school that teaches me kids to sing , " Barack Hussein Obama ( or George Dubya Bush ) .
He 'll save our land .
Mmmm mmmm mmmm " .
Neither do I want Medisuck or social insecurity that increases healthcare costs ( paperwork and labor ) .
In my opinion ALL of this should be eliminated and replaced with private , customer-run services with a " safety net " to help the bottom 2-3 \ % that ca n't afford to pay the bill .
So..... definitely not " everyone " as you claimed.I 'm pro-choice.Government is anti-choice.It 's monopoly .
: - ) * * Estimated debt per home in 2020 according to the CBO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually a communist paradise DOES cost money.
You earn it - the government takes it and "serves" you with free grocery stores (with long lines), free housing (with 10 people squeezed inside), free apartments (the size of a dorm room), and on and on.
Just see Soviet Union circa 1980.As for this broaband plan:I still don't see why it's my responsibility to fund a fiber optic hookup for some farmer living in the middle of noplace (the Wyoming/Idaho border for example).
There's a much cheaper way to get broadband out there, and it will be done in typical free market efficiency (read: as cheap as possible), rather than through the corruption of government employees that spend most of their day surfing the net (see my job at the FAA):- Congress mandates that Verizon/ATT/whoever must provide DSL to any customer that requests it.- WAIT.
If the farmer is happy with dialup, then he keep dialup, but if he requests highspeed then:- Verizon installs a DSLAM.
The phone lines are already there.
so it should be a simple 1-2 day job.
Like so: Fiber--&gt; DSLAM--&gt; serves neighborhood/rural districtIf the local company balks at the expense, remind them they received billions from the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and suggest they use that money to buy those ~$1000 DSLAMs.
I think that's a MUCH better solution than some Amtrak-style government program.
I certainly can't afford to have my taxes raised (again).
And my children/grandchildren can't afford to payoff the soon-to-be ~$200,000 per home government debt*.
We need to spend LESS money, not more, else we'll soon endup like Greece or Iceland..&gt;&gt;&gt;Everybody wants services (public schools, Medicare, military, etc),Not correct.
I don't want a government-run school that teaches me kids to sing, "Barack Hussein Obama (or George Dubya Bush).
He'll save our land.
Mmmm mmmm mmmm".
Neither do I want Medisuck or social insecurity that increases healthcare costs (paperwork and labor).
In my opinion ALL of this should be eliminated and replaced with private, customer-run services with a "safety net" to help the bottom 2-3\% that can't afford to pay the bill.
So..... definitely not "everyone" as you claimed.I'm pro-choice.Government is anti-choice.It's monopoly.
:-)** Estimated debt per home in 2020 according to the CBO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31498016</id>
	<title>Re:Government Services</title>
	<author>s73v3r</author>
	<datestamp>1268763000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>By "free market efficiency", you mean not doing it at all, because there isn't much profit in it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>By " free market efficiency " , you mean not doing it at all , because there is n't much profit in it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By "free market efficiency", you mean not doing it at all, because there isn't much profit in it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494984</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't this just a LITTLE premature?</title>
	<author>amplt1337</author>
	<datestamp>1268752140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...yeah, not to mention that his take on it was essentially fact-free hectoring about how the report is light on figures.  Mmmkay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...yeah , not to mention that his take on it was essentially fact-free hectoring about how the report is light on figures .
Mmmkay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...yeah, not to mention that his take on it was essentially fact-free hectoring about how the report is light on figures.
Mmmkay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31496670</id>
	<title>Re:Rural areas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268758200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait, so are you saying that if Verizon doesn't want a particular portion of the airwaves, we should force them to take it and then run a wireless service at a loss?</p><p>That's pretty barbaric. Why don't we just tie a rock to their feet and throw them in a lake.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , so are you saying that if Verizon does n't want a particular portion of the airwaves , we should force them to take it and then run a wireless service at a loss ? That 's pretty barbaric .
Why do n't we just tie a rock to their feet and throw them in a lake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, so are you saying that if Verizon doesn't want a particular portion of the airwaves, we should force them to take it and then run a wireless service at a loss?That's pretty barbaric.
Why don't we just tie a rock to their feet and throw them in a lake.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494728</id>
	<title>Re:Government Services</title>
	<author>Mostly Harmless</author>
	<datestamp>1268751300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Personally, I have no problem paying for the services I use (and a little here and there to help those in need is ok, too). The problem is, I pay income tax. Some of that money is going to the ISPs, etc. Then I pay state/local taxes which also partially fund ISPs. Then I pay additional taxes attached to my broadband/cable/telephone bill. Then there's the broadband bill itself. Oh, and my cable/telephone/wireless bills are increased because carriers can't afford broadband on its own.

So fine, I'm willing to pay extra taxes if it's going to significantly improve my broadband experience, but somewhere along the line I know I'm going to be [double | triple | quadruple | etc.] charged, and that's not right.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I have no problem paying for the services I use ( and a little here and there to help those in need is ok , too ) .
The problem is , I pay income tax .
Some of that money is going to the ISPs , etc .
Then I pay state/local taxes which also partially fund ISPs .
Then I pay additional taxes attached to my broadband/cable/telephone bill .
Then there 's the broadband bill itself .
Oh , and my cable/telephone/wireless bills are increased because carriers ca n't afford broadband on its own .
So fine , I 'm willing to pay extra taxes if it 's going to significantly improve my broadband experience , but somewhere along the line I know I 'm going to be [ double | triple | quadruple | etc .
] charged , and that 's not right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I have no problem paying for the services I use (and a little here and there to help those in need is ok, too).
The problem is, I pay income tax.
Some of that money is going to the ISPs, etc.
Then I pay state/local taxes which also partially fund ISPs.
Then I pay additional taxes attached to my broadband/cable/telephone bill.
Then there's the broadband bill itself.
Oh, and my cable/telephone/wireless bills are increased because carriers can't afford broadband on its own.
So fine, I'm willing to pay extra taxes if it's going to significantly improve my broadband experience, but somewhere along the line I know I'm going to be [double | triple | quadruple | etc.
] charged, and that's not right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495706</id>
	<title>Re:Why do poor people need broadband internet</title>
	<author>wytcld</author>
	<datestamp>1268754780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All communications and media rely on public right of way, whether to string lines or transmit over radio frequencies. Even paper transmissions rely on public roads, and often the public postal system. There is nobody in any media who is not in implicit partnership with the government. There is no stance the government can take that does not end up favoring some players, and some strategies, over others. So it is best that the government make its decisions out in the open, rather than pretend it's not a player. And it's best that the government try to favor the broad interests of the people, rather than the entrenched interests of existing media.</p><p>Existing media interests have been stalling on providing broad band net access, despite other countries showing that the road forward is wide open, and within our economic means. The government is <i>attempting</i> here to tilt the field more towards the public's interest in having true broadband access. It is legitimate to view this as as much a right as the right to receive mail, phone calls, the newspaper, and over-the-air broadcasts. It involves public rights of way just as much as those others do. It cannot be done but by government partnership. And the government, as a partner, needs to speak for its owners, us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All communications and media rely on public right of way , whether to string lines or transmit over radio frequencies .
Even paper transmissions rely on public roads , and often the public postal system .
There is nobody in any media who is not in implicit partnership with the government .
There is no stance the government can take that does not end up favoring some players , and some strategies , over others .
So it is best that the government make its decisions out in the open , rather than pretend it 's not a player .
And it 's best that the government try to favor the broad interests of the people , rather than the entrenched interests of existing media.Existing media interests have been stalling on providing broad band net access , despite other countries showing that the road forward is wide open , and within our economic means .
The government is attempting here to tilt the field more towards the public 's interest in having true broadband access .
It is legitimate to view this as as much a right as the right to receive mail , phone calls , the newspaper , and over-the-air broadcasts .
It involves public rights of way just as much as those others do .
It can not be done but by government partnership .
And the government , as a partner , needs to speak for its owners , us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All communications and media rely on public right of way, whether to string lines or transmit over radio frequencies.
Even paper transmissions rely on public roads, and often the public postal system.
There is nobody in any media who is not in implicit partnership with the government.
There is no stance the government can take that does not end up favoring some players, and some strategies, over others.
So it is best that the government make its decisions out in the open, rather than pretend it's not a player.
And it's best that the government try to favor the broad interests of the people, rather than the entrenched interests of existing media.Existing media interests have been stalling on providing broad band net access, despite other countries showing that the road forward is wide open, and within our economic means.
The government is attempting here to tilt the field more towards the public's interest in having true broadband access.
It is legitimate to view this as as much a right as the right to receive mail, phone calls, the newspaper, and over-the-air broadcasts.
It involves public rights of way just as much as those others do.
It cannot be done but by government partnership.
And the government, as a partner, needs to speak for its owners, us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31499786</id>
	<title>Blame the telcos.</title>
	<author>MikeFM</author>
	<datestamp>1268769780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is businesses fighting to keep from offering decent service we've already paid for. Charge me $100 more a month but give me freaking fast, reliable, uncapped service. Tell the telcos to fsck off when they sue community efforts to roll out their own Internet. Stupid anti-consumer anti-competitive behavior needs to stop. If the taxpayer pays for strong infrastructure it enables business growth which of course provides jobs and a higher quality of life. Being cheap is a bad idea.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is businesses fighting to keep from offering decent service we 've already paid for .
Charge me $ 100 more a month but give me freaking fast , reliable , uncapped service .
Tell the telcos to fsck off when they sue community efforts to roll out their own Internet .
Stupid anti-consumer anti-competitive behavior needs to stop .
If the taxpayer pays for strong infrastructure it enables business growth which of course provides jobs and a higher quality of life .
Being cheap is a bad idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is businesses fighting to keep from offering decent service we've already paid for.
Charge me $100 more a month but give me freaking fast, reliable, uncapped service.
Tell the telcos to fsck off when they sue community efforts to roll out their own Internet.
Stupid anti-consumer anti-competitive behavior needs to stop.
If the taxpayer pays for strong infrastructure it enables business growth which of course provides jobs and a higher quality of life.
Being cheap is a bad idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31497476</id>
	<title>Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME</title>
	<author>Nethemas the Great</author>
	<datestamp>1268760900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The intentions of this really aren't any different than the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural\_Electrification\_Act" title="wikipedia.org">1936 Rural Electrification Act</a> [wikipedia.org].  Broadband is a necessary utility for enabling participation in a world going on around these people.  Obviously no one likes to spend money unnecessarily.</p><p>Unfortunately not everyone believes that neighbor should look out for neighbor.  That's sad.  It's also typically short-sighted.  The disenfranchisement of people almost always inevitably negatively impacts those that are not.  A lack of education increases the incident of crime.  A lack of preventative health care increases the need for emergency services, the cost of which is passed on to everyone else.  A lack of food aid (food stamps, etc.) decreases nutrition and increases incident of health problems.  A lack of funding to urban beautification, public cultural and recreational installations, etc. results in filthy, ugly, depressing wastelands reminiscent of dystopian sci-fi flicks and/or Detroit increasing incident of mental health issues and vandalism.</p><p>While it is true that government is not the most resource efficient, it is also true that individuals on their own are incapable of providing for themselves all of the vital resources of a civilization.  Before people chime in with "businesses can this, and businesses can that" consider for a moment what the sole purpose of a business is.  Make money.  What tools are employed?  Charge as much money as the market can bear; marginalize if not eliminate competition by whatever means possible; create/maintain scarcity to increase value of product; minimize expenditure.  Left unto itself, business has a moral vacuum or will be consumed by those that do.  Morality must be forced onto business.  Consumers on their own are powerless to effect this and must be united under a common entity able to speak with one clear voice.  Traditionally this has been government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The intentions of this really are n't any different than the 1936 Rural Electrification Act [ wikipedia.org ] .
Broadband is a necessary utility for enabling participation in a world going on around these people .
Obviously no one likes to spend money unnecessarily.Unfortunately not everyone believes that neighbor should look out for neighbor .
That 's sad .
It 's also typically short-sighted .
The disenfranchisement of people almost always inevitably negatively impacts those that are not .
A lack of education increases the incident of crime .
A lack of preventative health care increases the need for emergency services , the cost of which is passed on to everyone else .
A lack of food aid ( food stamps , etc .
) decreases nutrition and increases incident of health problems .
A lack of funding to urban beautification , public cultural and recreational installations , etc .
results in filthy , ugly , depressing wastelands reminiscent of dystopian sci-fi flicks and/or Detroit increasing incident of mental health issues and vandalism.While it is true that government is not the most resource efficient , it is also true that individuals on their own are incapable of providing for themselves all of the vital resources of a civilization .
Before people chime in with " businesses can this , and businesses can that " consider for a moment what the sole purpose of a business is .
Make money .
What tools are employed ?
Charge as much money as the market can bear ; marginalize if not eliminate competition by whatever means possible ; create/maintain scarcity to increase value of product ; minimize expenditure .
Left unto itself , business has a moral vacuum or will be consumed by those that do .
Morality must be forced onto business .
Consumers on their own are powerless to effect this and must be united under a common entity able to speak with one clear voice .
Traditionally this has been government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The intentions of this really aren't any different than the 1936 Rural Electrification Act [wikipedia.org].
Broadband is a necessary utility for enabling participation in a world going on around these people.
Obviously no one likes to spend money unnecessarily.Unfortunately not everyone believes that neighbor should look out for neighbor.
That's sad.
It's also typically short-sighted.
The disenfranchisement of people almost always inevitably negatively impacts those that are not.
A lack of education increases the incident of crime.
A lack of preventative health care increases the need for emergency services, the cost of which is passed on to everyone else.
A lack of food aid (food stamps, etc.
) decreases nutrition and increases incident of health problems.
A lack of funding to urban beautification, public cultural and recreational installations, etc.
results in filthy, ugly, depressing wastelands reminiscent of dystopian sci-fi flicks and/or Detroit increasing incident of mental health issues and vandalism.While it is true that government is not the most resource efficient, it is also true that individuals on their own are incapable of providing for themselves all of the vital resources of a civilization.
Before people chime in with "businesses can this, and businesses can that" consider for a moment what the sole purpose of a business is.
Make money.
What tools are employed?
Charge as much money as the market can bear; marginalize if not eliminate competition by whatever means possible; create/maintain scarcity to increase value of product; minimize expenditure.
Left unto itself, business has a moral vacuum or will be consumed by those that do.
Morality must be forced onto business.
Consumers on their own are powerless to effect this and must be united under a common entity able to speak with one clear voice.
Traditionally this has been government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31497800</id>
	<title>Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1268762100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;Health Care on the other hand is a bit different. Without health care, people tend to die or become financially ruined and dependent on the state and/or charity for survival.<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;</p><p>Without healthcare people die.<br>With healthcare people die.</p><p><b>Either way it's the same result, so what's the point?   </b>  IMHO better to accept fate, and maybe have some catastrophic insurance that covers major bills (over $10,000), but that's it.  There's no need health insurance/government insurance rammed down my throat.  I don't want it.</p><p>And that's my choice as a free person.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; Health Care on the other hand is a bit different .
Without health care , people tend to die or become financially ruined and dependent on the state and/or charity for survival. &gt; &gt; &gt; Without healthcare people die.With healthcare people die.Either way it 's the same result , so what 's the point ?
IMHO better to accept fate , and maybe have some catastrophic insurance that covers major bills ( over $ 10,000 ) , but that 's it .
There 's no need health insurance/government insurance rammed down my throat .
I do n't want it.And that 's my choice as a free person .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;Health Care on the other hand is a bit different.
Without health care, people tend to die or become financially ruined and dependent on the state and/or charity for survival.&gt;&gt;&gt;Without healthcare people die.With healthcare people die.Either way it's the same result, so what's the point?
IMHO better to accept fate, and maybe have some catastrophic insurance that covers major bills (over $10,000), but that's it.
There's no need health insurance/government insurance rammed down my throat.
I don't want it.And that's my choice as a free person.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494964</id>
	<title>Re:Governments never reduce costs</title>
	<author>ekgringo</author>
	<datestamp>1268752080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>City-owned utilities are great until the city starts to run out of money. Then, in order to pay for their short-sightedness, they sell off the utility and it all goes to hell. Witness Chicago's recent parking meter fiasco.</htmltext>
<tokenext>City-owned utilities are great until the city starts to run out of money .
Then , in order to pay for their short-sightedness , they sell off the utility and it all goes to hell .
Witness Chicago 's recent parking meter fiasco .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>City-owned utilities are great until the city starts to run out of money.
Then, in order to pay for their short-sightedness, they sell off the utility and it all goes to hell.
Witness Chicago's recent parking meter fiasco.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493774</id>
	<title>Governments never reduce costs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268746020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course it will cost us money. Any time the "government" says they can do something at zero net cost, you know they are either lying or unreasonably optimistic. That is one of the rules of government spending - it always costs more than stated. A $750 billion stimulus will not cost $750 billion, it will cost $1 trillion. A $3 million bridge will cost $4 million. A 'brief' war will cost 5X what you think it will.<br> <br>
You may or may not like big businesses but businesses are usually very good at reducing costs, governments are not (the reason that isn't true with ISPs or cable companies is because they don't have any competition - most people live where there is a de facto ISP monopoly). I don't know why so many people - Republicans and Democrats and Independents - want the government to do more and spend more for us.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course it will cost us money .
Any time the " government " says they can do something at zero net cost , you know they are either lying or unreasonably optimistic .
That is one of the rules of government spending - it always costs more than stated .
A $ 750 billion stimulus will not cost $ 750 billion , it will cost $ 1 trillion .
A $ 3 million bridge will cost $ 4 million .
A 'brief ' war will cost 5X what you think it will .
You may or may not like big businesses but businesses are usually very good at reducing costs , governments are not ( the reason that is n't true with ISPs or cable companies is because they do n't have any competition - most people live where there is a de facto ISP monopoly ) .
I do n't know why so many people - Republicans and Democrats and Independents - want the government to do more and spend more for us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course it will cost us money.
Any time the "government" says they can do something at zero net cost, you know they are either lying or unreasonably optimistic.
That is one of the rules of government spending - it always costs more than stated.
A $750 billion stimulus will not cost $750 billion, it will cost $1 trillion.
A $3 million bridge will cost $4 million.
A 'brief' war will cost 5X what you think it will.
You may or may not like big businesses but businesses are usually very good at reducing costs, governments are not (the reason that isn't true with ISPs or cable companies is because they don't have any competition - most people live where there is a de facto ISP monopoly).
I don't know why so many people - Republicans and Democrats and Independents - want the government to do more and spend more for us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495094</id>
	<title>Re:Governments never reduce costs</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1268752500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>That is one of the rules of government spending - it always costs more than stated. </i></p><p>Yeah, if you think corporations are any different, you need to climb out of your mom's basement and take a look at the real world.</p><p><i>You may or may not like big businesses but businesses are usually very good at reducing costs,</i></p><p>Right, and then pocketing the savings.  I mean, look at all the deregulation that's happened over the last 20 years.  That's totally saved the consumers money, right?</p><p>Yeah, or not.</p><p><i>the reason that isn't true with ISPs or cable companies is because they don't have any competition</i></p><p>No, the reason is because they are natural monopolies with very high barriers of entry.</p><p>But don't let sound economic theory get in the way of your blind ideology.</p><p><i>I don't know why so many people - Republicans and Democrats and Independents - want the government to do more and spend more for us.</i></p><p>Because, believe it or not, markets break down sometimes!  I know, this might just blow your little libertarian mind, but there does exist such a thing as a "market failure".  Such failures occur when distorting forces exist, such as natural barriers of entry and so forth, which result in a breakdown in competition.  Broadband is such a market, just as any utility is, thanks to the exhorbitantly high cost of infrastructure deployment (one need only look at FIOS to see why broadband competition in the large is utterly absurd... it's literally cost them *billions* to roll out that program... no small business would ever be able to compete in that market).</p><p>But, hey, don't let me get in the way of your little religion, there.  I'm sure you have great faith that your god, the invisible hand, will swoop down and save all the true believers.  Meanwhile, the rest of us who live in the real world understand that markets aren't perfect, and sometimes government intervention is necessary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is one of the rules of government spending - it always costs more than stated .
Yeah , if you think corporations are any different , you need to climb out of your mom 's basement and take a look at the real world.You may or may not like big businesses but businesses are usually very good at reducing costs,Right , and then pocketing the savings .
I mean , look at all the deregulation that 's happened over the last 20 years .
That 's totally saved the consumers money , right ? Yeah , or not.the reason that is n't true with ISPs or cable companies is because they do n't have any competitionNo , the reason is because they are natural monopolies with very high barriers of entry.But do n't let sound economic theory get in the way of your blind ideology.I do n't know why so many people - Republicans and Democrats and Independents - want the government to do more and spend more for us.Because , believe it or not , markets break down sometimes !
I know , this might just blow your little libertarian mind , but there does exist such a thing as a " market failure " .
Such failures occur when distorting forces exist , such as natural barriers of entry and so forth , which result in a breakdown in competition .
Broadband is such a market , just as any utility is , thanks to the exhorbitantly high cost of infrastructure deployment ( one need only look at FIOS to see why broadband competition in the large is utterly absurd... it 's literally cost them * billions * to roll out that program... no small business would ever be able to compete in that market ) .But , hey , do n't let me get in the way of your little religion , there .
I 'm sure you have great faith that your god , the invisible hand , will swoop down and save all the true believers .
Meanwhile , the rest of us who live in the real world understand that markets are n't perfect , and sometimes government intervention is necessary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is one of the rules of government spending - it always costs more than stated.
Yeah, if you think corporations are any different, you need to climb out of your mom's basement and take a look at the real world.You may or may not like big businesses but businesses are usually very good at reducing costs,Right, and then pocketing the savings.
I mean, look at all the deregulation that's happened over the last 20 years.
That's totally saved the consumers money, right?Yeah, or not.the reason that isn't true with ISPs or cable companies is because they don't have any competitionNo, the reason is because they are natural monopolies with very high barriers of entry.But don't let sound economic theory get in the way of your blind ideology.I don't know why so many people - Republicans and Democrats and Independents - want the government to do more and spend more for us.Because, believe it or not, markets break down sometimes!
I know, this might just blow your little libertarian mind, but there does exist such a thing as a "market failure".
Such failures occur when distorting forces exist, such as natural barriers of entry and so forth, which result in a breakdown in competition.
Broadband is such a market, just as any utility is, thanks to the exhorbitantly high cost of infrastructure deployment (one need only look at FIOS to see why broadband competition in the large is utterly absurd... it's literally cost them *billions* to roll out that program... no small business would ever be able to compete in that market).But, hey, don't let me get in the way of your little religion, there.
I'm sure you have great faith that your god, the invisible hand, will swoop down and save all the true believers.
Meanwhile, the rest of us who live in the real world understand that markets aren't perfect, and sometimes government intervention is necessary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494386</id>
	<title>Plan Will Signficantly Reduce Costs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268749800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You make it sound as if corporate interests will somehow drive down the costs and that the current corporate-only approach is a great benefit to consumers through low costs.  There needs to be a balance between government intervention and long-range planning and the corporate view of the next quarterly earnings report.</p><p>Yes the plan will cost money, but then so does the current system, which is greatly stacked against the consuming public.  Presently, media companies use the airwaves as if they owned them.  With this attitude one gets 38 minutes of commercials for 22 minutes of programming and news you can not differentiate from Comedy Central.  If you buy cable then you pay $100-300/month to watch the 38 minutes of commercials  and 22 minutes of programming.  With the current system extraordinarily tilted to the benefit of media monopolies one gets limited choice and lot of pro-corporate propaganda and filtering for one's viewing dollar, with costs continuing to go up each year, like health-care premiums.  With a shift to internet broadcasting, costs will go down dramatically over time and scarce spectral resources will be used more efficiently and cost effectively by providing additional wireless services.  The wider the penetration of broadband the more variety of services can be provided that will promote much needed competition and greater programmatic and content diversity.  This is especially important now that America is steadily abandoning its educational institutions from K-Post Graduate to the altar of tax-reduction for the wealthy.  By forcing competition onto a relatively neutral transmission medium of the internet, we will likely see much greater competition that will over time GREATLY reduced costs.  It is only when the consumer has tremendous choice will one see lower prices.  This is the primary reason so many in the media-elite are eager to line up and argue against the proposal and ANY plan that threatens their cozy system.  This plan will force greater competition and reduce the influence of the most dominant players in what have become a patch-work of segmented monopoly markets that have been created through thousands of quietly or in a few cases, not-so-quietly negotiated contracts among media companies at the expense of the consumer.  Keep in mind that few of the existing media-telecommunications-technology companies are independent of one another.  Rather they are interconnected via a network of negotiated arrangements that typically extract the maximum cash from the consumer.  If the US is to retain a functioning, competitive system, it must insure that the overall result is at least in someway beneficial for the country as a whole, not just those best situated to profit from it.</p><p>Also, its time for the US to once again reclaim the lead in telecommunications and internet services.  The current system is only seeing other nations vault ahead of what was once a US dominated industry.  At least the Obama FCC has a plan that includes some role for the consumer, other than being at the wrong end of every corporate media-mogul's wish for personal enrichment and monopolization of markets.  Hats off to Obama for grasping the importance of improving the underlying technological infrastructure of America.  Its nice to see an FCC that at least can do something besides protect us from Janet Jackson's breasts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You make it sound as if corporate interests will somehow drive down the costs and that the current corporate-only approach is a great benefit to consumers through low costs .
There needs to be a balance between government intervention and long-range planning and the corporate view of the next quarterly earnings report.Yes the plan will cost money , but then so does the current system , which is greatly stacked against the consuming public .
Presently , media companies use the airwaves as if they owned them .
With this attitude one gets 38 minutes of commercials for 22 minutes of programming and news you can not differentiate from Comedy Central .
If you buy cable then you pay $ 100-300/month to watch the 38 minutes of commercials and 22 minutes of programming .
With the current system extraordinarily tilted to the benefit of media monopolies one gets limited choice and lot of pro-corporate propaganda and filtering for one 's viewing dollar , with costs continuing to go up each year , like health-care premiums .
With a shift to internet broadcasting , costs will go down dramatically over time and scarce spectral resources will be used more efficiently and cost effectively by providing additional wireless services .
The wider the penetration of broadband the more variety of services can be provided that will promote much needed competition and greater programmatic and content diversity .
This is especially important now that America is steadily abandoning its educational institutions from K-Post Graduate to the altar of tax-reduction for the wealthy .
By forcing competition onto a relatively neutral transmission medium of the internet , we will likely see much greater competition that will over time GREATLY reduced costs .
It is only when the consumer has tremendous choice will one see lower prices .
This is the primary reason so many in the media-elite are eager to line up and argue against the proposal and ANY plan that threatens their cozy system .
This plan will force greater competition and reduce the influence of the most dominant players in what have become a patch-work of segmented monopoly markets that have been created through thousands of quietly or in a few cases , not-so-quietly negotiated contracts among media companies at the expense of the consumer .
Keep in mind that few of the existing media-telecommunications-technology companies are independent of one another .
Rather they are interconnected via a network of negotiated arrangements that typically extract the maximum cash from the consumer .
If the US is to retain a functioning , competitive system , it must insure that the overall result is at least in someway beneficial for the country as a whole , not just those best situated to profit from it.Also , its time for the US to once again reclaim the lead in telecommunications and internet services .
The current system is only seeing other nations vault ahead of what was once a US dominated industry .
At least the Obama FCC has a plan that includes some role for the consumer , other than being at the wrong end of every corporate media-mogul 's wish for personal enrichment and monopolization of markets .
Hats off to Obama for grasping the importance of improving the underlying technological infrastructure of America .
Its nice to see an FCC that at least can do something besides protect us from Janet Jackson 's breasts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You make it sound as if corporate interests will somehow drive down the costs and that the current corporate-only approach is a great benefit to consumers through low costs.
There needs to be a balance between government intervention and long-range planning and the corporate view of the next quarterly earnings report.Yes the plan will cost money, but then so does the current system, which is greatly stacked against the consuming public.
Presently, media companies use the airwaves as if they owned them.
With this attitude one gets 38 minutes of commercials for 22 minutes of programming and news you can not differentiate from Comedy Central.
If you buy cable then you pay $100-300/month to watch the 38 minutes of commercials  and 22 minutes of programming.
With the current system extraordinarily tilted to the benefit of media monopolies one gets limited choice and lot of pro-corporate propaganda and filtering for one's viewing dollar, with costs continuing to go up each year, like health-care premiums.
With a shift to internet broadcasting, costs will go down dramatically over time and scarce spectral resources will be used more efficiently and cost effectively by providing additional wireless services.
The wider the penetration of broadband the more variety of services can be provided that will promote much needed competition and greater programmatic and content diversity.
This is especially important now that America is steadily abandoning its educational institutions from K-Post Graduate to the altar of tax-reduction for the wealthy.
By forcing competition onto a relatively neutral transmission medium of the internet, we will likely see much greater competition that will over time GREATLY reduced costs.
It is only when the consumer has tremendous choice will one see lower prices.
This is the primary reason so many in the media-elite are eager to line up and argue against the proposal and ANY plan that threatens their cozy system.
This plan will force greater competition and reduce the influence of the most dominant players in what have become a patch-work of segmented monopoly markets that have been created through thousands of quietly or in a few cases, not-so-quietly negotiated contracts among media companies at the expense of the consumer.
Keep in mind that few of the existing media-telecommunications-technology companies are independent of one another.
Rather they are interconnected via a network of negotiated arrangements that typically extract the maximum cash from the consumer.
If the US is to retain a functioning, competitive system, it must insure that the overall result is at least in someway beneficial for the country as a whole, not just those best situated to profit from it.Also, its time for the US to once again reclaim the lead in telecommunications and internet services.
The current system is only seeing other nations vault ahead of what was once a US dominated industry.
At least the Obama FCC has a plan that includes some role for the consumer, other than being at the wrong end of every corporate media-mogul's wish for personal enrichment and monopolization of markets.
Hats off to Obama for grasping the importance of improving the underlying technological infrastructure of America.
Its nice to see an FCC that at least can do something besides protect us from Janet Jackson's breasts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494162</id>
	<title>Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME</title>
	<author>Akido37</author>
	<datestamp>1268748540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You can not have a right to something that is non-free.</p></div><p>Tell that to the NRA.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can not have a right to something that is non-free.Tell that to the NRA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can not have a right to something that is non-free.Tell that to the NRA.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495360</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't this just a LITTLE premature?</title>
	<author>Yaos</author>
	<datestamp>1268753460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't see the problem, I read War &amp; Peace during lunch and wrote an essay on it. I got an F but it was the thought that counts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see the problem , I read War &amp; Peace during lunch and wrote an essay on it .
I got an F but it was the thought that counts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see the problem, I read War &amp; Peace during lunch and wrote an essay on it.
I got an F but it was the thought that counts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31497680</id>
	<title>Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1268761680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>In parts of the U.S. the electrical (and other) utilities are operated by a government entity, a "public utility district" or P.U.D. In other places, the electrical utilities, at least, are run by profiteers. Guess which system works better? And by better, we mean cheaper, more reliable, and of higher quality. That's right, all of the above. The reason for this is simple - accountability. In a marketplace that defines a natural monopoly, the mythical "invisible hand" of market economics is, de facto, not in play. Consumers can't shop for a better deal and, not being share holders, have no other influence on the provider. The P.U.D. customer, on the other hand, has the equivalent of share holder status. He/she has a vote that will elect the officials who will run the "company". The officials' jobs are tied to the customers' satisfaction above all else. And guess what? It works.</i> <br> <br>However there appears to be a maximum size for a public company to work effectivly. Try to make such a company "too big" and you end up with something accountable to nobody. Whilst a national public company might work for Iceland or The Netherlands it is unlikely to work in The UK, France, Germany, etc. In the US even some of the States might well be too large in area/population.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In parts of the U.S. the electrical ( and other ) utilities are operated by a government entity , a " public utility district " or P.U.D .
In other places , the electrical utilities , at least , are run by profiteers .
Guess which system works better ?
And by better , we mean cheaper , more reliable , and of higher quality .
That 's right , all of the above .
The reason for this is simple - accountability .
In a marketplace that defines a natural monopoly , the mythical " invisible hand " of market economics is , de facto , not in play .
Consumers ca n't shop for a better deal and , not being share holders , have no other influence on the provider .
The P.U.D .
customer , on the other hand , has the equivalent of share holder status .
He/she has a vote that will elect the officials who will run the " company " .
The officials ' jobs are tied to the customers ' satisfaction above all else .
And guess what ?
It works .
However there appears to be a maximum size for a public company to work effectivly .
Try to make such a company " too big " and you end up with something accountable to nobody .
Whilst a national public company might work for Iceland or The Netherlands it is unlikely to work in The UK , France , Germany , etc .
In the US even some of the States might well be too large in area/population .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In parts of the U.S. the electrical (and other) utilities are operated by a government entity, a "public utility district" or P.U.D.
In other places, the electrical utilities, at least, are run by profiteers.
Guess which system works better?
And by better, we mean cheaper, more reliable, and of higher quality.
That's right, all of the above.
The reason for this is simple - accountability.
In a marketplace that defines a natural monopoly, the mythical "invisible hand" of market economics is, de facto, not in play.
Consumers can't shop for a better deal and, not being share holders, have no other influence on the provider.
The P.U.D.
customer, on the other hand, has the equivalent of share holder status.
He/she has a vote that will elect the officials who will run the "company".
The officials' jobs are tied to the customers' satisfaction above all else.
And guess what?
It works.
However there appears to be a maximum size for a public company to work effectivly.
Try to make such a company "too big" and you end up with something accountable to nobody.
Whilst a national public company might work for Iceland or The Netherlands it is unlikely to work in The UK, France, Germany, etc.
In the US even some of the States might well be too large in area/population.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493934</id>
	<title>Re:Government Services</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268747280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All you need is an economic view on government services!</p><p>Military won't just liberate foreign countries, but loot them, too - that way, there's not just a cost center "US Army", but a profit center "US Army", too.<br>Medicare sells organs, and public schools start doing labor days: They provide the kids with some work experience, and at the same time bring in money!</p><p>Wait, not a good idea? Hm..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All you need is an economic view on government services ! Military wo n't just liberate foreign countries , but loot them , too - that way , there 's not just a cost center " US Army " , but a profit center " US Army " , too.Medicare sells organs , and public schools start doing labor days : They provide the kids with some work experience , and at the same time bring in money ! Wait , not a good idea ?
Hm. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All you need is an economic view on government services!Military won't just liberate foreign countries, but loot them, too - that way, there's not just a cost center "US Army", but a profit center "US Army", too.Medicare sells organs, and public schools start doing labor days: They provide the kids with some work experience, and at the same time bring in money!Wait, not a good idea?
Hm..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493704</id>
	<title>Socialist internetz</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268745300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why spend so much money hooking up rednecks and bible thumpers?</p><p>It won't improve their lives one bit, and will just add more retards to the internuts causing retardedness to overflow, which will destroy the world, and probably the solar system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why spend so much money hooking up rednecks and bible thumpers ? It wo n't improve their lives one bit , and will just add more retards to the internuts causing retardedness to overflow , which will destroy the world , and probably the solar system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why spend so much money hooking up rednecks and bible thumpers?It won't improve their lives one bit, and will just add more retards to the internuts causing retardedness to overflow, which will destroy the world, and probably the solar system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495106</id>
	<title>Re:Government Services</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268752560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>military<br>that's the only service i want from the Federal Government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>militarythat 's the only service i want from the Federal Government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>militarythat's the only service i want from the Federal Government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31501114</id>
	<title>Cost money?  Nah, it will be free...</title>
	<author>Aragorn DeLunar</author>
	<datestamp>1268732580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Free as in unicorns.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Free as in unicorns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Free as in unicorns.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494678</id>
	<title>Re:Governments never reduce costs</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1268751180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It depends on the government and the business. In a free market, business almost always does save the customer money. In a natural monopoly like utilities, roads, bridges, etc, you're going to pay through the nose if privately owned.</p><p>An example is two electric companies, CWLP and Amerin here in Illinois. Amerin's rates are far higher than CWLP's, who provide the cheapest power in the state. Amerin's customer service is abysmal, CWLP's is excellent. When two F-2 (almost F-3) tornados tore through CWLP-served Springfield, we had power restored in our devastated neighborhood in a week; houses that had their roofs impaled by their neighbors' roofs had electricity back long before the roof was fixed, and the electrical infrastructure was completely destroyed, requiring replacement of every pole, wire, and transformer. When a weak F1 passed through Amerin-served Cahokia across the river from St Louis, my friend Jeff was without power for over a month. I visited him a week after his tornado, and the only evidence one had gone through was his lack of electricity.</p><p>To paraphrase Lilly Tomlin's "Ernestine", "We're the electric company. We don't HAVE to." Amerin is only beholden to its stockholders, since their customers have no other choice for electricity. OTOH if CWLP's service is bad, the Mayor loses his job; the customers/citizens own CWKP.</p><p>CWLP not only doesn't use tax money, it actually turns a profit for the city, keeping taxes lower. Since <a href="http://slashdot.org/~mcgrew/journal/225401" title="slashdot.org">my experience with the tornados</a> [slashdot.org], I've advocated that all utilities be taken over by city and county governments. Keep government out of construction and fast food, but do away with private-owned utilities. A monopoly doesn't follow free market rules.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends on the government and the business .
In a free market , business almost always does save the customer money .
In a natural monopoly like utilities , roads , bridges , etc , you 're going to pay through the nose if privately owned.An example is two electric companies , CWLP and Amerin here in Illinois .
Amerin 's rates are far higher than CWLP 's , who provide the cheapest power in the state .
Amerin 's customer service is abysmal , CWLP 's is excellent .
When two F-2 ( almost F-3 ) tornados tore through CWLP-served Springfield , we had power restored in our devastated neighborhood in a week ; houses that had their roofs impaled by their neighbors ' roofs had electricity back long before the roof was fixed , and the electrical infrastructure was completely destroyed , requiring replacement of every pole , wire , and transformer .
When a weak F1 passed through Amerin-served Cahokia across the river from St Louis , my friend Jeff was without power for over a month .
I visited him a week after his tornado , and the only evidence one had gone through was his lack of electricity.To paraphrase Lilly Tomlin 's " Ernestine " , " We 're the electric company .
We do n't HAVE to .
" Amerin is only beholden to its stockholders , since their customers have no other choice for electricity .
OTOH if CWLP 's service is bad , the Mayor loses his job ; the customers/citizens own CWKP.CWLP not only does n't use tax money , it actually turns a profit for the city , keeping taxes lower .
Since my experience with the tornados [ slashdot.org ] , I 've advocated that all utilities be taken over by city and county governments .
Keep government out of construction and fast food , but do away with private-owned utilities .
A monopoly does n't follow free market rules .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends on the government and the business.
In a free market, business almost always does save the customer money.
In a natural monopoly like utilities, roads, bridges, etc, you're going to pay through the nose if privately owned.An example is two electric companies, CWLP and Amerin here in Illinois.
Amerin's rates are far higher than CWLP's, who provide the cheapest power in the state.
Amerin's customer service is abysmal, CWLP's is excellent.
When two F-2 (almost F-3) tornados tore through CWLP-served Springfield, we had power restored in our devastated neighborhood in a week; houses that had their roofs impaled by their neighbors' roofs had electricity back long before the roof was fixed, and the electrical infrastructure was completely destroyed, requiring replacement of every pole, wire, and transformer.
When a weak F1 passed through Amerin-served Cahokia across the river from St Louis, my friend Jeff was without power for over a month.
I visited him a week after his tornado, and the only evidence one had gone through was his lack of electricity.To paraphrase Lilly Tomlin's "Ernestine", "We're the electric company.
We don't HAVE to.
" Amerin is only beholden to its stockholders, since their customers have no other choice for electricity.
OTOH if CWLP's service is bad, the Mayor loses his job; the customers/citizens own CWKP.CWLP not only doesn't use tax money, it actually turns a profit for the city, keeping taxes lower.
Since my experience with the tornados [slashdot.org], I've advocated that all utilities be taken over by city and county governments.
Keep government out of construction and fast food, but do away with private-owned utilities.
A monopoly doesn't follow free market rules.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31499022</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, there's a shock!</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1268766840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yes, we should just leave the skies unregulated.<br>Also, let private industry determine and publish crash data all by themselves.</p><p>Tax and spend is the stupidest phrase ever created by the republicans.</p><p>Have you even thought about that phrase at all?</p><p>If they where Taxing and not spending, then you would have a point.<br>Or 'don't tax, borrow'; which should now be the republicans motto</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yes , we should just leave the skies unregulated.Also , let private industry determine and publish crash data all by themselves.Tax and spend is the stupidest phrase ever created by the republicans.Have you even thought about that phrase at all ? If they where Taxing and not spending , then you would have a point.Or 'do n't tax , borrow ' ; which should now be the republicans motto</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes, we should just leave the skies unregulated.Also, let private industry determine and publish crash data all by themselves.Tax and spend is the stupidest phrase ever created by the republicans.Have you even thought about that phrase at all?If they where Taxing and not spending, then you would have a point.Or 'don't tax, borrow'; which should now be the republicans motto</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493676</id>
	<title>it's red</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268744940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why. why so red.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why .
why so red .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why.
why so red.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493708</id>
	<title>Check your links</title>
	<author>SimonTheSoundMan</author>
	<datestamp>1268745360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> kdawson, the google page link links to a blank google news page.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>kdawson , the google page link links to a blank google news page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> kdawson, the google page link links to a blank google news page.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493938</id>
	<title>What about the backbones and the servers?</title>
	<author>JSBiff</author>
	<datestamp>1268747340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The FCC set a long-term goal of 100 million households with connections of 100 megabits per second"</p><p>I remember seeing that statement somewhere else (I think it was <a href="http://arstechnica.com/" title="arstechnica.com">ArsTechnica.com</a> [arstechnica.com]), and I can't help but wonder how the FCC thinks that will help consumers if the Internet backbones and servers don't also get improved? Here's what I mean - my local Telco recently rolled out fiber to my apartment building, so I now have a 10Mbs/2Mbs Internet connection - not blazingly fast by any means, but a nice bump up from the 5M/768k connection I previously had with DSL. Anyhow, what I've noticed is that, sometimes I get faster download/upload speeds, but with a lot of servers, I'm not coming anywhere close to fully utilizing the available bandwidth on my connection, because somewhere in the connection (whether it's the server, or some link in-between, I really don't know for sure), something is bandwidth-limited.</p><p>It seems to me that any governmental push to increase the speed of service for 100 Million households requires that not only do you upgrade the 'last mile' connection, but there needs to be a focus on getting the backbones and servers on faster connections too. Without that, it's kind of pointless, isn't it? I don't think I'd have any *use* for a 100Mbps Internet connection since almost no servers anywhere are going to be able to consistently feed me data at even a significant fraction of that speed.</p><p>Also, since ISPs typically give you a very small fraction of the upload speed compared to your download speed (Coming Soon! 100Mbps Ultra-Broadband Internet!* [fine print: upload speeds of 6Mbps]), users can't really even provide content to *each other* at anywhere close to that rate. So, what am I supposed to do with 100Mbps?  I suppose if you have 5 people using computers all at once in your home/apartment/small office, it might be nice that they each 'get their own' 20Mbps, but what is the drive for this particular number? What's so special about 100Mbps?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The FCC set a long-term goal of 100 million households with connections of 100 megabits per second " I remember seeing that statement somewhere else ( I think it was ArsTechnica.com [ arstechnica.com ] ) , and I ca n't help but wonder how the FCC thinks that will help consumers if the Internet backbones and servers do n't also get improved ?
Here 's what I mean - my local Telco recently rolled out fiber to my apartment building , so I now have a 10Mbs/2Mbs Internet connection - not blazingly fast by any means , but a nice bump up from the 5M/768k connection I previously had with DSL .
Anyhow , what I 've noticed is that , sometimes I get faster download/upload speeds , but with a lot of servers , I 'm not coming anywhere close to fully utilizing the available bandwidth on my connection , because somewhere in the connection ( whether it 's the server , or some link in-between , I really do n't know for sure ) , something is bandwidth-limited.It seems to me that any governmental push to increase the speed of service for 100 Million households requires that not only do you upgrade the 'last mile ' connection , but there needs to be a focus on getting the backbones and servers on faster connections too .
Without that , it 's kind of pointless , is n't it ?
I do n't think I 'd have any * use * for a 100Mbps Internet connection since almost no servers anywhere are going to be able to consistently feed me data at even a significant fraction of that speed.Also , since ISPs typically give you a very small fraction of the upload speed compared to your download speed ( Coming Soon !
100Mbps Ultra-Broadband Internet !
* [ fine print : upload speeds of 6Mbps ] ) , users ca n't really even provide content to * each other * at anywhere close to that rate .
So , what am I supposed to do with 100Mbps ?
I suppose if you have 5 people using computers all at once in your home/apartment/small office , it might be nice that they each 'get their own ' 20Mbps , but what is the drive for this particular number ?
What 's so special about 100Mbps ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The FCC set a long-term goal of 100 million households with connections of 100 megabits per second"I remember seeing that statement somewhere else (I think it was ArsTechnica.com [arstechnica.com]), and I can't help but wonder how the FCC thinks that will help consumers if the Internet backbones and servers don't also get improved?
Here's what I mean - my local Telco recently rolled out fiber to my apartment building, so I now have a 10Mbs/2Mbs Internet connection - not blazingly fast by any means, but a nice bump up from the 5M/768k connection I previously had with DSL.
Anyhow, what I've noticed is that, sometimes I get faster download/upload speeds, but with a lot of servers, I'm not coming anywhere close to fully utilizing the available bandwidth on my connection, because somewhere in the connection (whether it's the server, or some link in-between, I really don't know for sure), something is bandwidth-limited.It seems to me that any governmental push to increase the speed of service for 100 Million households requires that not only do you upgrade the 'last mile' connection, but there needs to be a focus on getting the backbones and servers on faster connections too.
Without that, it's kind of pointless, isn't it?
I don't think I'd have any *use* for a 100Mbps Internet connection since almost no servers anywhere are going to be able to consistently feed me data at even a significant fraction of that speed.Also, since ISPs typically give you a very small fraction of the upload speed compared to your download speed (Coming Soon!
100Mbps Ultra-Broadband Internet!
* [fine print: upload speeds of 6Mbps]), users can't really even provide content to *each other* at anywhere close to that rate.
So, what am I supposed to do with 100Mbps?
I suppose if you have 5 people using computers all at once in your home/apartment/small office, it might be nice that they each 'get their own' 20Mbps, but what is the drive for this particular number?
What's so special about 100Mbps?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31497978</id>
	<title>Re:Governments never reduce costs</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1268762820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It depends on the government and the business. In a free market, business almost always does save the customer money. In a natural monopoly like utilities, roads, bridges, etc, you're going to pay through the nose if privately owned.</i></p><p>Well said.</p><p>Two other factors that make markets susceptible to distortion are elasticity and imperfect information. A great example is health care -- people are very poorly informed and demand is extremely insensitive to price (in addition to the fiat monopolies of patents and trade protectionism, and the natural monopoly of regionally captive audiences).</p><p>More on Elasticity:<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price\_elasticity\_of\_demand" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price\_elasticity\_of\_demand</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends on the government and the business .
In a free market , business almost always does save the customer money .
In a natural monopoly like utilities , roads , bridges , etc , you 're going to pay through the nose if privately owned.Well said.Two other factors that make markets susceptible to distortion are elasticity and imperfect information .
A great example is health care -- people are very poorly informed and demand is extremely insensitive to price ( in addition to the fiat monopolies of patents and trade protectionism , and the natural monopoly of regionally captive audiences ) .More on Elasticity : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price \ _elasticity \ _of \ _demand [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends on the government and the business.
In a free market, business almost always does save the customer money.
In a natural monopoly like utilities, roads, bridges, etc, you're going to pay through the nose if privately owned.Well said.Two other factors that make markets susceptible to distortion are elasticity and imperfect information.
A great example is health care -- people are very poorly informed and demand is extremely insensitive to price (in addition to the fiat monopolies of patents and trade protectionism, and the natural monopoly of regionally captive audiences).More on Elasticity:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price\_elasticity\_of\_demand [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31499072</id>
	<title>Re:Governments never reduce costs</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1268767020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>", you know they are either lying or unreasonably optimistic. T"</p><p>Actually, most the time they are correct. IN fact I see it at work; of course those projects don't get in the news. Neither do projects that are on time and on budget; which is most projects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" , you know they are either lying or unreasonably optimistic .
T " Actually , most the time they are correct .
IN fact I see it at work ; of course those projects do n't get in the news .
Neither do projects that are on time and on budget ; which is most projects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>", you know they are either lying or unreasonably optimistic.
T"Actually, most the time they are correct.
IN fact I see it at work; of course those projects don't get in the news.
Neither do projects that are on time and on budget; which is most projects.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494228</id>
	<title>Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME</title>
	<author>eremos</author>
	<datestamp>1268748900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Would you say electricity and water are rights? Waste disposal? You pay for those.

Anyway, even if you don't consider access to good infrastructure a right, it's definitely still a Good Idea. Not having that access will hold a society back.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you say electricity and water are rights ?
Waste disposal ?
You pay for those .
Anyway , even if you do n't consider access to good infrastructure a right , it 's definitely still a Good Idea .
Not having that access will hold a society back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you say electricity and water are rights?
Waste disposal?
You pay for those.
Anyway, even if you don't consider access to good infrastructure a right, it's definitely still a Good Idea.
Not having that access will hold a society back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494776</id>
	<title>Re:Government Services</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268751420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it just saves just one bureaucrat from having to change jobs to go to the private sector where pay and benefits are so much lower than from the government, then it's worth it! (Well to them, anyway.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it just saves just one bureaucrat from having to change jobs to go to the private sector where pay and benefits are so much lower than from the government , then it 's worth it !
( Well to them , anyway .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it just saves just one bureaucrat from having to change jobs to go to the private sector where pay and benefits are so much lower than from the government, then it's worth it!
(Well to them, anyway.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31499366</id>
	<title>Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268768160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And I'm going to punch the next person that tells me "Broadband is a right".</p></div><p>Actually, rights are whatever we determine them to be.  If society decides that broadband is a right, then broadband is a right.  You, of course, are more than welcome to disagree with the decision of society, that is a right granted to you by said society.  You however do not have the right to punch people in the face (even though those punches are free).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And I 'm going to punch the next person that tells me " Broadband is a right " .Actually , rights are whatever we determine them to be .
If society decides that broadband is a right , then broadband is a right .
You , of course , are more than welcome to disagree with the decision of society , that is a right granted to you by said society .
You however do not have the right to punch people in the face ( even though those punches are free ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I'm going to punch the next person that tells me "Broadband is a right".Actually, rights are whatever we determine them to be.
If society decides that broadband is a right, then broadband is a right.
You, of course, are more than welcome to disagree with the decision of society, that is a right granted to you by said society.
You however do not have the right to punch people in the face (even though those punches are free).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31496340</id>
	<title>Telecom joke</title>
	<author>lonesome phreak</author>
	<datestamp>1268757180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to work at Worldcom before Bernie got arrested...many cubes had little signs that said something like:</p><p>"How do you know you work in telecom? Same desk, same office, five different companies in three years"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to work at Worldcom before Bernie got arrested...many cubes had little signs that said something like : " How do you know you work in telecom ?
Same desk , same office , five different companies in three years "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to work at Worldcom before Bernie got arrested...many cubes had little signs that said something like:"How do you know you work in telecom?
Same desk, same office, five different companies in three years"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493904</id>
	<title>Re:Governments never reduce costs</title>
	<author>TheKidWho</author>
	<datestamp>1268747160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, except the entire purpose of a corporation is to turn a profit, social welfare be damned.  If hooking up Internet to those 10 people living away from society isn't going to turn us a profit, then we'll be damned if we're going to hook them up!  The Federal Government on the other hand has more at stake with regards to the welfare of society and making sure that interstate commerce is working smoothly.</p><p>There are certain jobs that only the government can do well, and there are many others that the government should have absolutely no role in.  The problem with government spending is that everything goes by a middle of the road scenario when it comes to cost estimation, however these kinds of large scale projects always become more complicated then it initially seems and costs rise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , except the entire purpose of a corporation is to turn a profit , social welfare be damned .
If hooking up Internet to those 10 people living away from society is n't going to turn us a profit , then we 'll be damned if we 're going to hook them up !
The Federal Government on the other hand has more at stake with regards to the welfare of society and making sure that interstate commerce is working smoothly.There are certain jobs that only the government can do well , and there are many others that the government should have absolutely no role in .
The problem with government spending is that everything goes by a middle of the road scenario when it comes to cost estimation , however these kinds of large scale projects always become more complicated then it initially seems and costs rise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, except the entire purpose of a corporation is to turn a profit, social welfare be damned.
If hooking up Internet to those 10 people living away from society isn't going to turn us a profit, then we'll be damned if we're going to hook them up!
The Federal Government on the other hand has more at stake with regards to the welfare of society and making sure that interstate commerce is working smoothly.There are certain jobs that only the government can do well, and there are many others that the government should have absolutely no role in.
The problem with government spending is that everything goes by a middle of the road scenario when it comes to cost estimation, however these kinds of large scale projects always become more complicated then it initially seems and costs rise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494094</id>
	<title>Re:Soshalism!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268748240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As opposed to the corporate tax that you currently pay that goes into the corporate coffers...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As opposed to the corporate tax that you currently pay that goes into the corporate coffers.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As opposed to the corporate tax that you currently pay that goes into the corporate coffers...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495652</id>
	<title>Re:Governments never reduce costs</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1268754540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In a natural monopoly like utilities, roads, bridges, etc, you're going to pay through the nose if privately owned.</p></div><p>As far as I can tell utilities (telephone and electrical service anyway) are not natural monopolies. If you study the history of both, you will discover that in the early days there were many competitors in many areas. The politicians decided to come in and create local monopolies. The most successful local monopolies bought out the less successful local monopolies in other regions until there was only one in the case of telephone service(there is some evidence that there was government interference in deciding who was a "successful" local monopoly and who wasn't).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In a natural monopoly like utilities , roads , bridges , etc , you 're going to pay through the nose if privately owned.As far as I can tell utilities ( telephone and electrical service anyway ) are not natural monopolies .
If you study the history of both , you will discover that in the early days there were many competitors in many areas .
The politicians decided to come in and create local monopolies .
The most successful local monopolies bought out the less successful local monopolies in other regions until there was only one in the case of telephone service ( there is some evidence that there was government interference in deciding who was a " successful " local monopoly and who was n't ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a natural monopoly like utilities, roads, bridges, etc, you're going to pay through the nose if privately owned.As far as I can tell utilities (telephone and electrical service anyway) are not natural monopolies.
If you study the history of both, you will discover that in the early days there were many competitors in many areas.
The politicians decided to come in and create local monopolies.
The most successful local monopolies bought out the less successful local monopolies in other regions until there was only one in the case of telephone service(there is some evidence that there was government interference in deciding who was a "successful" local monopoly and who wasn't).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494370</id>
	<title>Last Mile</title>
	<author>rlp</author>
	<datestamp>1268749680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's what I would do: cities and towns provide the infrastructure for the last mile.  They connect fiber to homes, schools, and businesses and run it to a neighborhood hub.  In rural areas, counties could build towers for 4G wireless.  Then the big carriers would connect to the hubs (multiple carriers per hub for maximum competition) and charge for service.  Local government would be responsible for deploying and maintaining last mile service, private carriers would compete to supply internet connections and other services (telecomm, video) at the best possible prices.  Of course, I don't expect any of this to actually happen<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's what I would do : cities and towns provide the infrastructure for the last mile .
They connect fiber to homes , schools , and businesses and run it to a neighborhood hub .
In rural areas , counties could build towers for 4G wireless .
Then the big carriers would connect to the hubs ( multiple carriers per hub for maximum competition ) and charge for service .
Local government would be responsible for deploying and maintaining last mile service , private carriers would compete to supply internet connections and other services ( telecomm , video ) at the best possible prices .
Of course , I do n't expect any of this to actually happen .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's what I would do: cities and towns provide the infrastructure for the last mile.
They connect fiber to homes, schools, and businesses and run it to a neighborhood hub.
In rural areas, counties could build towers for 4G wireless.
Then the big carriers would connect to the hubs (multiple carriers per hub for maximum competition) and charge for service.
Local government would be responsible for deploying and maintaining last mile service, private carriers would compete to supply internet connections and other services (telecomm, video) at the best possible prices.
Of course, I don't expect any of this to actually happen ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31496784</id>
	<title>Re:Governments never reduce costs</title>
	<author>osgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1268758620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People are stupid and too short-sighted to understand the impact of handing government more and more power.</p><p>Pretty much as you imply, telecom companies fail at good capitalism virtues of efficiency and rapid increase in value because they're monopolies.  Government is the ultimate monopoly... the worst one of all since they're the only entity in the country that can legally come in and use force to make you comply with their policies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People are stupid and too short-sighted to understand the impact of handing government more and more power.Pretty much as you imply , telecom companies fail at good capitalism virtues of efficiency and rapid increase in value because they 're monopolies .
Government is the ultimate monopoly... the worst one of all since they 're the only entity in the country that can legally come in and use force to make you comply with their policies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People are stupid and too short-sighted to understand the impact of handing government more and more power.Pretty much as you imply, telecom companies fail at good capitalism virtues of efficiency and rapid increase in value because they're monopolies.
Government is the ultimate monopoly... the worst one of all since they're the only entity in the country that can legally come in and use force to make you comply with their policies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31501708</id>
	<title>Re:What about the backbones and the servers?</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1268735520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I remember seeing that statement somewhere else (I think it was ArsTechnica.com [arstechnica.com]), and I can't help but wonder how the FCC thinks that will help consumers if the Internet backbones and servers don't also get improved?</p></div></blockquote><p>There's plenty of private business case to upgrade individual firms servers as need increases; the part where there is limited incentive is "second-mile" and "last-mile" connections to rural areas, which is why those are the target of the plan.</p><blockquote><div><p>Anyhow, what I've noticed is that, sometimes I get faster download/upload speeds, but with a lot of servers, I'm not coming anywhere close to fully utilizing the available bandwidth on my connection, because somewhere in the connection (whether it's the server, or some link in-between, I really don't know for sure), something is bandwidth-limited.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes, and even when everyone has 100Mbps connections, you won't always have the full bandwidth of the machine at the other end dedicated to your connection alone.</p><p>OTOH, you will be able to interact with more servers for more complex tasks over the same home connection.</p><blockquote><div><p>It seems to me that any governmental push to increase the speed of service for 100 Million households requires that not only do you upgrade the 'last mile' connection, but there needs to be a focus on getting the backbones and servers on faster connections too.</p></div> </blockquote><p>If more users are hitting a for-profit businesses servers, the business case for shelling out the money to upgrade the servers and their internet connection is easy.</p><blockquote><div><p>Also, since ISPs typically give you a very small fraction of the upload speed compared to your download speed (Coming Soon! 100Mbps Ultra-Broadband Internet!* [fine print: upload speeds of 6Mbps]), users can't really even provide content to *each other* at anywhere close to that rate.</p></div> </blockquote><p>RTF Plan: The target is 100 million homes with "affordable access to actual download speeds of at least 100 megabits per second and actual upload speeds of at least 50 megabits per second." So the plan targets having end users with an upload speed that is not a <i>small</i> fraction of the 100 Mbps target actual download speed. So users would be able to use much (though not all) of their capacity in even in single connection, home user to home user scenarios.</p><blockquote><div><p>What's so special about 100Mbps?</p></div></blockquote><p>The same thing that's special about 100 million households. That is: nothing inherent; it just provides a specific, concrete goal.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember seeing that statement somewhere else ( I think it was ArsTechnica.com [ arstechnica.com ] ) , and I ca n't help but wonder how the FCC thinks that will help consumers if the Internet backbones and servers do n't also get improved ? There 's plenty of private business case to upgrade individual firms servers as need increases ; the part where there is limited incentive is " second-mile " and " last-mile " connections to rural areas , which is why those are the target of the plan.Anyhow , what I 've noticed is that , sometimes I get faster download/upload speeds , but with a lot of servers , I 'm not coming anywhere close to fully utilizing the available bandwidth on my connection , because somewhere in the connection ( whether it 's the server , or some link in-between , I really do n't know for sure ) , something is bandwidth-limited.Yes , and even when everyone has 100Mbps connections , you wo n't always have the full bandwidth of the machine at the other end dedicated to your connection alone.OTOH , you will be able to interact with more servers for more complex tasks over the same home connection.It seems to me that any governmental push to increase the speed of service for 100 Million households requires that not only do you upgrade the 'last mile ' connection , but there needs to be a focus on getting the backbones and servers on faster connections too .
If more users are hitting a for-profit businesses servers , the business case for shelling out the money to upgrade the servers and their internet connection is easy.Also , since ISPs typically give you a very small fraction of the upload speed compared to your download speed ( Coming Soon !
100Mbps Ultra-Broadband Internet !
* [ fine print : upload speeds of 6Mbps ] ) , users ca n't really even provide content to * each other * at anywhere close to that rate .
RTF Plan : The target is 100 million homes with " affordable access to actual download speeds of at least 100 megabits per second and actual upload speeds of at least 50 megabits per second .
" So the plan targets having end users with an upload speed that is not a small fraction of the 100 Mbps target actual download speed .
So users would be able to use much ( though not all ) of their capacity in even in single connection , home user to home user scenarios.What 's so special about 100Mbps ? The same thing that 's special about 100 million households .
That is : nothing inherent ; it just provides a specific , concrete goal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember seeing that statement somewhere else (I think it was ArsTechnica.com [arstechnica.com]), and I can't help but wonder how the FCC thinks that will help consumers if the Internet backbones and servers don't also get improved?There's plenty of private business case to upgrade individual firms servers as need increases; the part where there is limited incentive is "second-mile" and "last-mile" connections to rural areas, which is why those are the target of the plan.Anyhow, what I've noticed is that, sometimes I get faster download/upload speeds, but with a lot of servers, I'm not coming anywhere close to fully utilizing the available bandwidth on my connection, because somewhere in the connection (whether it's the server, or some link in-between, I really don't know for sure), something is bandwidth-limited.Yes, and even when everyone has 100Mbps connections, you won't always have the full bandwidth of the machine at the other end dedicated to your connection alone.OTOH, you will be able to interact with more servers for more complex tasks over the same home connection.It seems to me that any governmental push to increase the speed of service for 100 Million households requires that not only do you upgrade the 'last mile' connection, but there needs to be a focus on getting the backbones and servers on faster connections too.
If more users are hitting a for-profit businesses servers, the business case for shelling out the money to upgrade the servers and their internet connection is easy.Also, since ISPs typically give you a very small fraction of the upload speed compared to your download speed (Coming Soon!
100Mbps Ultra-Broadband Internet!
* [fine print: upload speeds of 6Mbps]), users can't really even provide content to *each other* at anywhere close to that rate.
RTF Plan: The target is 100 million homes with "affordable access to actual download speeds of at least 100 megabits per second and actual upload speeds of at least 50 megabits per second.
" So the plan targets having end users with an upload speed that is not a small fraction of the 100 Mbps target actual download speed.
So users would be able to use much (though not all) of their capacity in even in single connection, home user to home user scenarios.What's so special about 100Mbps?The same thing that's special about 100 million households.
That is: nothing inherent; it just provides a specific, concrete goal.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493884</id>
	<title>Re:Governments never reduce costs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268747040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't know why so many people - Republicans and Democrats and Independents - want the government to do more and spend more for us.</p></div><p>I'd like for <i>someone</i> to do more for us, but I can't seem to get Google (or Apple, or Lenovo, or...) to give a shit about what I want.  Since I'd rather have something done than nothing, the government - sucky as it is - is the remaining option, with the all the delightful garbage that accompanies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know why so many people - Republicans and Democrats and Independents - want the government to do more and spend more for us.I 'd like for someone to do more for us , but I ca n't seem to get Google ( or Apple , or Lenovo , or... ) to give a shit about what I want .
Since I 'd rather have something done than nothing , the government - sucky as it is - is the remaining option , with the all the delightful garbage that accompanies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know why so many people - Republicans and Democrats and Independents - want the government to do more and spend more for us.I'd like for someone to do more for us, but I can't seem to get Google (or Apple, or Lenovo, or...) to give a shit about what I want.
Since I'd rather have something done than nothing, the government - sucky as it is - is the remaining option, with the all the delightful garbage that accompanies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495022</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't this just a LITTLE premature?</title>
	<author>PPalmgren</author>
	<datestamp>1268752260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't see a link to the document in those links, but I'd assume its a giant peice of legalese.  A large majority of legal documents are simply definitions, and the rest overly verbose ways of describing something simple.  Once you know how to read a legal document, it takes less time to read than most child's books of the same length.</p><p>It is still important to read thoroughly to find the gaps and loopholes coded into the document, but you can grasp a majority of the substance by only reading 20\% of the paper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't see a link to the document in those links , but I 'd assume its a giant peice of legalese .
A large majority of legal documents are simply definitions , and the rest overly verbose ways of describing something simple .
Once you know how to read a legal document , it takes less time to read than most child 's books of the same length.It is still important to read thoroughly to find the gaps and loopholes coded into the document , but you can grasp a majority of the substance by only reading 20 \ % of the paper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't see a link to the document in those links, but I'd assume its a giant peice of legalese.
A large majority of legal documents are simply definitions, and the rest overly verbose ways of describing something simple.
Once you know how to read a legal document, it takes less time to read than most child's books of the same length.It is still important to read thoroughly to find the gaps and loopholes coded into the document, but you can grasp a majority of the substance by only reading 20\% of the paper.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494084</id>
	<title>Isn't this just a LITTLE premature?</title>
	<author>debrisslider</author>
	<datestamp>1268748120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>So the text has been out for several hours and this guy flipped through it (you can't honestly read 357 pages of children's fiction in that time, let alone government policy) enough to find a few stated ideas for taxes, and all of a sudden it's a net loss for consumers? When are those taxes going to take effect, and what is the inflation-adjusted amount in today's dollars? It's a lot easier to suggest taxes than to try and tell congress how to budget or regulate companies, so this statement of policy cannot honestly take into account any kind of subsidy that might be dreamed up by congress (save your complaints about how taxes pay for that, that's not the kind of cost we're talking about), nor any kind of price regulations that would decrease charges. A substantial part of the plan is supposed to be paid for by auctioning another part of the broadcast spectrum, and there's no way of knowing anything other than a ballpark estimate for that amount. It's not like this is anything other than the first public rough draft; items will change and funding will be battled over every day until the relevant budgets are passed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So the text has been out for several hours and this guy flipped through it ( you ca n't honestly read 357 pages of children 's fiction in that time , let alone government policy ) enough to find a few stated ideas for taxes , and all of a sudden it 's a net loss for consumers ?
When are those taxes going to take effect , and what is the inflation-adjusted amount in today 's dollars ?
It 's a lot easier to suggest taxes than to try and tell congress how to budget or regulate companies , so this statement of policy can not honestly take into account any kind of subsidy that might be dreamed up by congress ( save your complaints about how taxes pay for that , that 's not the kind of cost we 're talking about ) , nor any kind of price regulations that would decrease charges .
A substantial part of the plan is supposed to be paid for by auctioning another part of the broadcast spectrum , and there 's no way of knowing anything other than a ballpark estimate for that amount .
It 's not like this is anything other than the first public rough draft ; items will change and funding will be battled over every day until the relevant budgets are passed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the text has been out for several hours and this guy flipped through it (you can't honestly read 357 pages of children's fiction in that time, let alone government policy) enough to find a few stated ideas for taxes, and all of a sudden it's a net loss for consumers?
When are those taxes going to take effect, and what is the inflation-adjusted amount in today's dollars?
It's a lot easier to suggest taxes than to try and tell congress how to budget or regulate companies, so this statement of policy cannot honestly take into account any kind of subsidy that might be dreamed up by congress (save your complaints about how taxes pay for that, that's not the kind of cost we're talking about), nor any kind of price regulations that would decrease charges.
A substantial part of the plan is supposed to be paid for by auctioning another part of the broadcast spectrum, and there's no way of knowing anything other than a ballpark estimate for that amount.
It's not like this is anything other than the first public rough draft; items will change and funding will be battled over every day until the relevant budgets are passed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494906</id>
	<title>Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1268751840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The reason for this is simple - accountability. In a marketplace that defines a natural monopoly, the mythical "invisible hand" of market economics is, de facto, not in play. Consumers can't shop for a better deal and, not being share holders, have no other influence on the provider.</p></div><p>Just like healthcare.  Especially emergency rooms and any other critical care.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason for this is simple - accountability .
In a marketplace that defines a natural monopoly , the mythical " invisible hand " of market economics is , de facto , not in play .
Consumers ca n't shop for a better deal and , not being share holders , have no other influence on the provider.Just like healthcare .
Especially emergency rooms and any other critical care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason for this is simple - accountability.
In a marketplace that defines a natural monopoly, the mythical "invisible hand" of market economics is, de facto, not in play.
Consumers can't shop for a better deal and, not being share holders, have no other influence on the provider.Just like healthcare.
Especially emergency rooms and any other critical care.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493684</id>
	<title>Wow, there's a shock!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268744940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The government tries to "help" and only ends up costing taxpayers money without really solving the problem they don't have the business solving in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The government tries to " help " and only ends up costing taxpayers money without really solving the problem they do n't have the business solving in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government tries to "help" and only ends up costing taxpayers money without really solving the problem they don't have the business solving in the first place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494174</id>
	<title>Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1268748600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And I'm going to punch the next person that tells me "Broadband is a right". The hell it is. It is a good, a service that must be paid for, same as healthcare.</p></div><p>There are some regulatory hassles, but pretty much anyone can buy land and build a dr office on it.</p><p>On the other hand, I can't think of any broadband provider who does not have easements to steal the use of property, a government granted monopoly to sell in a market, or use the public's wireless spectrum for private profit, or simply sponge off/resell someone else whom does so.</p><p>That's the difference.  Broadband is not a free market by any means so its pointless to pretend that it is.  Take Take Take from the public, the least the public should ask for is universal service and a nicely regulated price.  If the drooling masses want to dramatically simplify that to "broadband is a right" that's more or less close enough.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>You can not have a right to something that is non-free.</p></div><p>Like free speech, or equal protection under the law, or not quartering soldiers in private homes without the owner's consent?  That's expensive compared the alternatives, but our ancestors decided the costs were worth it.  You can always move to Somalia if you think that would be a paradise on earth.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And I 'm going to punch the next person that tells me " Broadband is a right " .
The hell it is .
It is a good , a service that must be paid for , same as healthcare.There are some regulatory hassles , but pretty much anyone can buy land and build a dr office on it.On the other hand , I ca n't think of any broadband provider who does not have easements to steal the use of property , a government granted monopoly to sell in a market , or use the public 's wireless spectrum for private profit , or simply sponge off/resell someone else whom does so.That 's the difference .
Broadband is not a free market by any means so its pointless to pretend that it is .
Take Take Take from the public , the least the public should ask for is universal service and a nicely regulated price .
If the drooling masses want to dramatically simplify that to " broadband is a right " that 's more or less close enough.You can not have a right to something that is non-free.Like free speech , or equal protection under the law , or not quartering soldiers in private homes without the owner 's consent ?
That 's expensive compared the alternatives , but our ancestors decided the costs were worth it .
You can always move to Somalia if you think that would be a paradise on earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I'm going to punch the next person that tells me "Broadband is a right".
The hell it is.
It is a good, a service that must be paid for, same as healthcare.There are some regulatory hassles, but pretty much anyone can buy land and build a dr office on it.On the other hand, I can't think of any broadband provider who does not have easements to steal the use of property, a government granted monopoly to sell in a market, or use the public's wireless spectrum for private profit, or simply sponge off/resell someone else whom does so.That's the difference.
Broadband is not a free market by any means so its pointless to pretend that it is.
Take Take Take from the public, the least the public should ask for is universal service and a nicely regulated price.
If the drooling masses want to dramatically simplify that to "broadband is a right" that's more or less close enough.You can not have a right to something that is non-free.Like free speech, or equal protection under the law, or not quartering soldiers in private homes without the owner's consent?
That's expensive compared the alternatives, but our ancestors decided the costs were worth it.
You can always move to Somalia if you think that would be a paradise on earth.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31498390</id>
	<title>Missing the target</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268764500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really??? Internet for the poor??? Really?  I like how people are arguing or debating about this.  So instead of housing the poor or getting them jobs or the real necessities the FCC is missing the target by a few light years by trying to provide the poor internet and in turn hiking up the cost over all.  Good game FCC.  It's nice to know that you're looking out for the people by providing them something that's pretty trivial in their lives.  Good game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ? ? ?
Internet for the poor ? ? ?
Really ? I like how people are arguing or debating about this .
So instead of housing the poor or getting them jobs or the real necessities the FCC is missing the target by a few light years by trying to provide the poor internet and in turn hiking up the cost over all .
Good game FCC .
It 's nice to know that you 're looking out for the people by providing them something that 's pretty trivial in their lives .
Good game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really???
Internet for the poor???
Really?  I like how people are arguing or debating about this.
So instead of housing the poor or getting them jobs or the real necessities the FCC is missing the target by a few light years by trying to provide the poor internet and in turn hiking up the cost over all.
Good game FCC.
It's nice to know that you're looking out for the people by providing them something that's pretty trivial in their lives.
Good game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493898</id>
	<title>State run telecoms are AWESOME</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268747100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having lived in and visited countries with largely state-run telecom industry and then come home to the USA, I think it should be painfully obvious to all that government does <b>not</b> do a good job at running telecommunications. I know this isn't an attempt at running a telecom, but it sounds like they are going to screw the pooch just by trying to <i>influence</i> the market. The power of the FCC to f-things up is just that immense.</p><p>And I'm going to punch the next person that tells me "Broadband is a right". The hell it is. It is a good, a service that must be paid for, same as healthcare. You can not have a right to something that is non-free. Now I'm open to discussion on whether the state should pay for people to have a certain good, but see the above on how well states run telecoms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having lived in and visited countries with largely state-run telecom industry and then come home to the USA , I think it should be painfully obvious to all that government does not do a good job at running telecommunications .
I know this is n't an attempt at running a telecom , but it sounds like they are going to screw the pooch just by trying to influence the market .
The power of the FCC to f-things up is just that immense.And I 'm going to punch the next person that tells me " Broadband is a right " .
The hell it is .
It is a good , a service that must be paid for , same as healthcare .
You can not have a right to something that is non-free .
Now I 'm open to discussion on whether the state should pay for people to have a certain good , but see the above on how well states run telecoms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having lived in and visited countries with largely state-run telecom industry and then come home to the USA, I think it should be painfully obvious to all that government does not do a good job at running telecommunications.
I know this isn't an attempt at running a telecom, but it sounds like they are going to screw the pooch just by trying to influence the market.
The power of the FCC to f-things up is just that immense.And I'm going to punch the next person that tells me "Broadband is a right".
The hell it is.
It is a good, a service that must be paid for, same as healthcare.
You can not have a right to something that is non-free.
Now I'm open to discussion on whether the state should pay for people to have a certain good, but see the above on how well states run telecoms.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494676</id>
	<title>Re:Government Services</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268751120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Government provides a service - in this case, asking/forcing someone else to provide a service - and people are shocked that it will cost money?  What kind of Communist paradise do these people live in where Government doesn't cost anything?</p><p>Everybody wants services (public schools, Medicare, military, etc), nobody wants to pay taxes.</p></div><p>I find your ideas intriguing and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Government provides a service - in this case , asking/forcing someone else to provide a service - and people are shocked that it will cost money ?
What kind of Communist paradise do these people live in where Government does n't cost anything ? Everybody wants services ( public schools , Medicare , military , etc ) , nobody wants to pay taxes.I find your ideas intriguing and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Government provides a service - in this case, asking/forcing someone else to provide a service - and people are shocked that it will cost money?
What kind of Communist paradise do these people live in where Government doesn't cost anything?Everybody wants services (public schools, Medicare, military, etc), nobody wants to pay taxes.I find your ideas intriguing and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494018</id>
	<title>some servers are rate limited so 1 download can't</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1268747880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>some servers are rate limited so 1 download can't max it out and so others can get a good speed as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>some servers are rate limited so 1 download ca n't max it out and so others can get a good speed as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>some servers are rate limited so 1 download can't max it out and so others can get a good speed as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31499228</id>
	<title>Re:Socialist internetz</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268767620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are claiming that by searching for and reading about reasonable arguments, your bible thumpers would be able to educate themselves, you either don't know how this humanity thing works or you are probably a Chicagoan trying to pass as a True American.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are claiming that by searching for and reading about reasonable arguments , your bible thumpers would be able to educate themselves , you either do n't know how this humanity thing works or you are probably a Chicagoan trying to pass as a True American .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are claiming that by searching for and reading about reasonable arguments, your bible thumpers would be able to educate themselves, you either don't know how this humanity thing works or you are probably a Chicagoan trying to pass as a True American.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494724</id>
	<title>Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME</title>
	<author>Eskarel</author>
	<datestamp>1268751300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not entirely sure I agree with you.</p><p>To begin with, having lived in a country with an appalling semi-privatized used to be government run telecom(Australia and Telstra) and having lived in a country with an appalling fully privatized telecom(USA and SBC) I can't say I've noticed a huge amount of difference. Large telecom companies are pretty universally appalling in my experience be they state run, private run, or somewhere in between, apparently in order to run or work for a large telecom you have to sell your soul, at least for the duration of the working day. They're just not pleasant enterprises. I suppose you could argue that there's no such thing as a small government telecom whereas some small private telecoms do exist, but that's sort of thin.</p><p>Secondly, while governments do a pretty bloody awful job at running telecoms(like private industry), having anyone but governments pay for building telecom infrastructure ends up being a gigantic disaster with redundant infrastructure, high costs, and poor coverage. Infrastructure is expensive and private companies don't share voluntarily. That means no small telecoms and generally speaking two or three mediocre fibre roll outs instead of one good one.</p><p>As for the Broadband is a right thing, I don't think it is, however studies seem to indicate that it provides some rather amazing social and economic benefits and doing expensive things that have huge economic and social benefits over the long term, but which don't turn short term profits are kind of what we have governments for because lord knows no one else will do them.</p><p>Health Care on the other hand is a bit different. Without health care, people tend to die or become financially ruined and dependent on the state and/or charity for survival. Those are some pretty damned serious consequences and at least border on being basic rights. The above arguments regarding long term or intangible payoffs and the inability of private enterprise to adequately realize them also comes into play. Health Care would be a lot cheaper if we didn't have to try and turn it into a short term profit generator.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not entirely sure I agree with you.To begin with , having lived in a country with an appalling semi-privatized used to be government run telecom ( Australia and Telstra ) and having lived in a country with an appalling fully privatized telecom ( USA and SBC ) I ca n't say I 've noticed a huge amount of difference .
Large telecom companies are pretty universally appalling in my experience be they state run , private run , or somewhere in between , apparently in order to run or work for a large telecom you have to sell your soul , at least for the duration of the working day .
They 're just not pleasant enterprises .
I suppose you could argue that there 's no such thing as a small government telecom whereas some small private telecoms do exist , but that 's sort of thin.Secondly , while governments do a pretty bloody awful job at running telecoms ( like private industry ) , having anyone but governments pay for building telecom infrastructure ends up being a gigantic disaster with redundant infrastructure , high costs , and poor coverage .
Infrastructure is expensive and private companies do n't share voluntarily .
That means no small telecoms and generally speaking two or three mediocre fibre roll outs instead of one good one.As for the Broadband is a right thing , I do n't think it is , however studies seem to indicate that it provides some rather amazing social and economic benefits and doing expensive things that have huge economic and social benefits over the long term , but which do n't turn short term profits are kind of what we have governments for because lord knows no one else will do them.Health Care on the other hand is a bit different .
Without health care , people tend to die or become financially ruined and dependent on the state and/or charity for survival .
Those are some pretty damned serious consequences and at least border on being basic rights .
The above arguments regarding long term or intangible payoffs and the inability of private enterprise to adequately realize them also comes into play .
Health Care would be a lot cheaper if we did n't have to try and turn it into a short term profit generator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not entirely sure I agree with you.To begin with, having lived in a country with an appalling semi-privatized used to be government run telecom(Australia and Telstra) and having lived in a country with an appalling fully privatized telecom(USA and SBC) I can't say I've noticed a huge amount of difference.
Large telecom companies are pretty universally appalling in my experience be they state run, private run, or somewhere in between, apparently in order to run or work for a large telecom you have to sell your soul, at least for the duration of the working day.
They're just not pleasant enterprises.
I suppose you could argue that there's no such thing as a small government telecom whereas some small private telecoms do exist, but that's sort of thin.Secondly, while governments do a pretty bloody awful job at running telecoms(like private industry), having anyone but governments pay for building telecom infrastructure ends up being a gigantic disaster with redundant infrastructure, high costs, and poor coverage.
Infrastructure is expensive and private companies don't share voluntarily.
That means no small telecoms and generally speaking two or three mediocre fibre roll outs instead of one good one.As for the Broadband is a right thing, I don't think it is, however studies seem to indicate that it provides some rather amazing social and economic benefits and doing expensive things that have huge economic and social benefits over the long term, but which don't turn short term profits are kind of what we have governments for because lord knows no one else will do them.Health Care on the other hand is a bit different.
Without health care, people tend to die or become financially ruined and dependent on the state and/or charity for survival.
Those are some pretty damned serious consequences and at least border on being basic rights.
The above arguments regarding long term or intangible payoffs and the inability of private enterprise to adequately realize them also comes into play.
Health Care would be a lot cheaper if we didn't have to try and turn it into a short term profit generator.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494280</id>
	<title>Re:Government Services</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268749200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everybody wants services?  Many people disagree. Many people want a very limited government the provides only the very basics (security, some infrastructure, etc).<br>Nobody wants to pay taxes?  Many people will may reasonable taxes for basic items, but don't want to pay excessively to fund government handouts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everybody wants services ?
Many people disagree .
Many people want a very limited government the provides only the very basics ( security , some infrastructure , etc ) .Nobody wants to pay taxes ?
Many people will may reasonable taxes for basic items , but do n't want to pay excessively to fund government handouts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everybody wants services?
Many people disagree.
Many people want a very limited government the provides only the very basics (security, some infrastructure, etc).Nobody wants to pay taxes?
Many people will may reasonable taxes for basic items, but don't want to pay excessively to fund government handouts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494948</id>
	<title>Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME</title>
	<author>amplt1337</author>
	<datestamp>1268752020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Having lived in and visited countries with largely state-run telecom industry</p></div><p>Which would those be?  Because if you're talking Bolivia or something, I would humbly suggest that there might be some confounding variables other than private-vs-public.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>You can not have a right to something that is non-free. Now I'm open to discussion on whether the state should pay for people to have a certain good...</p></div><p>Um, what about a right to fire-fighters?  What about a right to the equal protection of the country's laws?  Law enforcement is very much non-free, but it's assumed necessary in all but the most incoherent anti-government political positions.</p><p>There's an additional discussion to be had about the nature of rights, but I don't want to get too sidetracked right now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having lived in and visited countries with largely state-run telecom industryWhich would those be ?
Because if you 're talking Bolivia or something , I would humbly suggest that there might be some confounding variables other than private-vs-public.You can not have a right to something that is non-free .
Now I 'm open to discussion on whether the state should pay for people to have a certain good...Um , what about a right to fire-fighters ?
What about a right to the equal protection of the country 's laws ?
Law enforcement is very much non-free , but it 's assumed necessary in all but the most incoherent anti-government political positions.There 's an additional discussion to be had about the nature of rights , but I do n't want to get too sidetracked right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having lived in and visited countries with largely state-run telecom industryWhich would those be?
Because if you're talking Bolivia or something, I would humbly suggest that there might be some confounding variables other than private-vs-public.You can not have a right to something that is non-free.
Now I'm open to discussion on whether the state should pay for people to have a certain good...Um, what about a right to fire-fighters?
What about a right to the equal protection of the country's laws?
Law enforcement is very much non-free, but it's assumed necessary in all but the most incoherent anti-government political positions.There's an additional discussion to be had about the nature of rights, but I don't want to get too sidetracked right now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31498026</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, there's a shock!</title>
	<author>PinkyGigglebrain</author>
	<datestamp>1268763060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here, not hear.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here , not hear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here, not hear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495028</id>
	<title>Re:Governments never reduce costs</title>
	<author>I\_Voter</author>
	<datestamp>1268752260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Political competition works better than a two party system. The same principle works in government as in economics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Political competition works better than a two party system .
The same principle works in government as in economics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Political competition works better than a two party system.
The same principle works in government as in economics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494182</id>
	<title>Re:What about the backbones and the servers?</title>
	<author>magamiako1</author>
	<datestamp>1268748660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Keep in mind that this type of connection isn't necessarily for the current "client-server" model that we're used to today. Not to mention that not all data "requires" a 100Mbit connection.<br><br>Imagine having HD surveillance of your house at all times? Imagine being able to stream HD x264 encoded content across multiple TVs and devices in your house? Or being able to access your movie library while over a friend's house?<br><br>Instead of the hosted servers, you can run your own services and devices from your own home internet connection.<br><br>And there are a whole lot more things that we haven't even thought of yet that this could allow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Keep in mind that this type of connection is n't necessarily for the current " client-server " model that we 're used to today .
Not to mention that not all data " requires " a 100Mbit connection.Imagine having HD surveillance of your house at all times ?
Imagine being able to stream HD x264 encoded content across multiple TVs and devices in your house ?
Or being able to access your movie library while over a friend 's house ? Instead of the hosted servers , you can run your own services and devices from your own home internet connection.And there are a whole lot more things that we have n't even thought of yet that this could allow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keep in mind that this type of connection isn't necessarily for the current "client-server" model that we're used to today.
Not to mention that not all data "requires" a 100Mbit connection.Imagine having HD surveillance of your house at all times?
Imagine being able to stream HD x264 encoded content across multiple TVs and devices in your house?
Or being able to access your movie library while over a friend's house?Instead of the hosted servers, you can run your own services and devices from your own home internet connection.And there are a whole lot more things that we haven't even thought of yet that this could allow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494860</id>
	<title>Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1268751720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;So why should telecom be any different?</p><p>Where I live electricity is not a monopoly.  I have the choice of about 10 different companies, and it works great.  We have the cheapest electricity in the U.S. at only 8.9 cents per KWH.</p><p>I want the same non-monopoly situation for my internet and cable TV.  I want to able to choose from ~10 different providers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; So why should telecom be any different ? Where I live electricity is not a monopoly .
I have the choice of about 10 different companies , and it works great .
We have the cheapest electricity in the U.S. at only 8.9 cents per KWH.I want the same non-monopoly situation for my internet and cable TV .
I want to able to choose from ~ 10 different providers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;So why should telecom be any different?Where I live electricity is not a monopoly.
I have the choice of about 10 different companies, and it works great.
We have the cheapest electricity in the U.S. at only 8.9 cents per KWH.I want the same non-monopoly situation for my internet and cable TV.
I want to able to choose from ~10 different providers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31497306</id>
	<title>Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1268760300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>On the other hand, I can't think of any broadband provider who does not have easements to steal the use of property, a government granted monopoly to sell in a market, or use the public's wireless spectrum for private profit, or simply sponge off/resell someone else whom does so.</i> <br> <br>Then you even get to the daft situation of telecomms companies taking legal action to prevent city governments providing data networks which the telecomms companies don't want to provide.<br> <br> <i>Broadband is not a free market by any means so its pointless to pretend that it is. Take Take Take from the public, the least the public should ask for is universal service</i> <br> <br>Indeed having the right to run cables over/under just about anyone's land only really makes sense together with an obligation to provide service to anyone who wants it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , I ca n't think of any broadband provider who does not have easements to steal the use of property , a government granted monopoly to sell in a market , or use the public 's wireless spectrum for private profit , or simply sponge off/resell someone else whom does so .
Then you even get to the daft situation of telecomms companies taking legal action to prevent city governments providing data networks which the telecomms companies do n't want to provide .
Broadband is not a free market by any means so its pointless to pretend that it is .
Take Take Take from the public , the least the public should ask for is universal service Indeed having the right to run cables over/under just about anyone 's land only really makes sense together with an obligation to provide service to anyone who wants it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, I can't think of any broadband provider who does not have easements to steal the use of property, a government granted monopoly to sell in a market, or use the public's wireless spectrum for private profit, or simply sponge off/resell someone else whom does so.
Then you even get to the daft situation of telecomms companies taking legal action to prevent city governments providing data networks which the telecomms companies don't want to provide.
Broadband is not a free market by any means so its pointless to pretend that it is.
Take Take Take from the public, the least the public should ask for is universal service  Indeed having the right to run cables over/under just about anyone's land only really makes sense together with an obligation to provide service to anyone who wants it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495468</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, there's a shock!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268753880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope the FAA can spell better than that, Ronnie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope the FAA can spell better than that , Ronnie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope the FAA can spell better than that, Ronnie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493792</id>
	<title>Rural areas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268746080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Consider that wiring urbanized areas is quite straightforward due to the availability of labour as well as the preexisting infrastructure.  Wiring rural areas is a tough task, where often services are provided for an outright financial loss.  Even in countries such as New Zealand where the enlongated geography and coastal towns mean that in principle there is only a short distance for cable to run, laying infrequently used cable in remote areas makes it unattractive.</p><p>In such cases broadcasters ought to accommodate wireless services, and probably a good argument can be made for compulsory acquisition of airwaves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Consider that wiring urbanized areas is quite straightforward due to the availability of labour as well as the preexisting infrastructure .
Wiring rural areas is a tough task , where often services are provided for an outright financial loss .
Even in countries such as New Zealand where the enlongated geography and coastal towns mean that in principle there is only a short distance for cable to run , laying infrequently used cable in remote areas makes it unattractive.In such cases broadcasters ought to accommodate wireless services , and probably a good argument can be made for compulsory acquisition of airwaves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consider that wiring urbanized areas is quite straightforward due to the availability of labour as well as the preexisting infrastructure.
Wiring rural areas is a tough task, where often services are provided for an outright financial loss.
Even in countries such as New Zealand where the enlongated geography and coastal towns mean that in principle there is only a short distance for cable to run, laying infrequently used cable in remote areas makes it unattractive.In such cases broadcasters ought to accommodate wireless services, and probably a good argument can be made for compulsory acquisition of airwaves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494616</id>
	<title>Why am I not surprised...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268750940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...that the plan will cost most Americans money, and won't provide much if any relief to the poor."</p><p>When does the U.S. government do something that doesn't match the above?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...that the plan will cost most Americans money , and wo n't provide much if any relief to the poor .
" When does the U.S. government do something that does n't match the above ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...that the plan will cost most Americans money, and won't provide much if any relief to the poor.
"When does the U.S. government do something that doesn't match the above?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31497244</id>
	<title>High Cost is the US Signature</title>
	<author>gink1</author>
	<datestamp>1268760120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know you are dealing with a US solution to a problem when it takes a huge bite out of your wallet as it helps you!</p><p>We are a country based on free enterprise after all.</p><p>And the assumption is that all Americans can all afford to pay more.</p><p>---</p><p>Standing tall in the land of the rich and the poor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know you are dealing with a US solution to a problem when it takes a huge bite out of your wallet as it helps you ! We are a country based on free enterprise after all.And the assumption is that all Americans can all afford to pay more.---Standing tall in the land of the rich and the poor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know you are dealing with a US solution to a problem when it takes a huge bite out of your wallet as it helps you!We are a country based on free enterprise after all.And the assumption is that all Americans can all afford to pay more.---Standing tall in the land of the rich and the poor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495192</id>
	<title>Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME</title>
	<author>Curunir\_wolf</author>
	<datestamp>1268752860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>You can not have a right to something that is non-free.</p></div><p>Sure you can. Public defense attorneys, jury trials, and other requirements of the Constitution definitely aren't free.</p></div><p>Neither is jail.  But those are all costs borne by government to TAKE AWAY inherent rights of one of its citizens.  The only real justification for doing that is to protect the rights of other citizens.  Which is the only reason for the necessary evil of government to exist at all.</p><p>So the costs you are attributing to these things are inherent costs of GOVERNMENT, not of individual RIGHTS.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can not have a right to something that is non-free.Sure you can .
Public defense attorneys , jury trials , and other requirements of the Constitution definitely are n't free.Neither is jail .
But those are all costs borne by government to TAKE AWAY inherent rights of one of its citizens .
The only real justification for doing that is to protect the rights of other citizens .
Which is the only reason for the necessary evil of government to exist at all.So the costs you are attributing to these things are inherent costs of GOVERNMENT , not of individual RIGHTS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can not have a right to something that is non-free.Sure you can.
Public defense attorneys, jury trials, and other requirements of the Constitution definitely aren't free.Neither is jail.
But those are all costs borne by government to TAKE AWAY inherent rights of one of its citizens.
The only real justification for doing that is to protect the rights of other citizens.
Which is the only reason for the necessary evil of government to exist at all.So the costs you are attributing to these things are inherent costs of GOVERNMENT, not of individual RIGHTS.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495224</id>
	<title>Re:Last Mile</title>
	<author>eth1</author>
	<datestamp>1268752980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've also thought that this would be the best way to do it. After all, my city already has enough conduit run to every house to provide full duplex water service, and they manage to deliver that quite well.</p><p>Unfortunately, it would be really expensive to add this now that everything is all built up. New development doesn't really have any excuse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've also thought that this would be the best way to do it .
After all , my city already has enough conduit run to every house to provide full duplex water service , and they manage to deliver that quite well.Unfortunately , it would be really expensive to add this now that everything is all built up .
New development does n't really have any excuse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've also thought that this would be the best way to do it.
After all, my city already has enough conduit run to every house to provide full duplex water service, and they manage to deliver that quite well.Unfortunately, it would be really expensive to add this now that everything is all built up.
New development doesn't really have any excuse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31499688</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, there's a shock!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268769480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Help" is a government euphemism for corruption.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Help " is a government euphemism for corruption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Help" is a government euphemism for corruption.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494642</id>
	<title>Re:Why do poor people need broadband internet</title>
	<author>debrisslider</author>
	<datestamp>1268751000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Access to information is vital for being an informed member of society, and the government long ago decided it is worth subsidizing its availability. Don't think of it merely as access to the internet. We have libraries for free access to books, newspapers and magazines, government pamphlets/official documents, educational programs, public speakers and presentations, community cultural and political events, and even just intellectual hangouts. The internet is merely the world's best library, alongside being an economic juggernaut that is only going to drive more commerce in the future, and good broadband internet is a steal compared to the cost of bringing even a fraction of a decent metropolitan library's capacities to rural areas and the poor. The possibilities for furthering education (both k-12 and adult) alone should be good enough, as surely the increased tax base from an educated populace should more than pay for the subsidies, plus sometimes the government just isn't afraid of spending public money to ensure that the public can be informed about the government's activities; think how much money can be saved from having to print pamphlets, fliers, and forms. The internet isn't just for trolling forums and watching Youtube.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Access to information is vital for being an informed member of society , and the government long ago decided it is worth subsidizing its availability .
Do n't think of it merely as access to the internet .
We have libraries for free access to books , newspapers and magazines , government pamphlets/official documents , educational programs , public speakers and presentations , community cultural and political events , and even just intellectual hangouts .
The internet is merely the world 's best library , alongside being an economic juggernaut that is only going to drive more commerce in the future , and good broadband internet is a steal compared to the cost of bringing even a fraction of a decent metropolitan library 's capacities to rural areas and the poor .
The possibilities for furthering education ( both k-12 and adult ) alone should be good enough , as surely the increased tax base from an educated populace should more than pay for the subsidies , plus sometimes the government just is n't afraid of spending public money to ensure that the public can be informed about the government 's activities ; think how much money can be saved from having to print pamphlets , fliers , and forms .
The internet is n't just for trolling forums and watching Youtube .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Access to information is vital for being an informed member of society, and the government long ago decided it is worth subsidizing its availability.
Don't think of it merely as access to the internet.
We have libraries for free access to books, newspapers and magazines, government pamphlets/official documents, educational programs, public speakers and presentations, community cultural and political events, and even just intellectual hangouts.
The internet is merely the world's best library, alongside being an economic juggernaut that is only going to drive more commerce in the future, and good broadband internet is a steal compared to the cost of bringing even a fraction of a decent metropolitan library's capacities to rural areas and the poor.
The possibilities for furthering education (both k-12 and adult) alone should be good enough, as surely the increased tax base from an educated populace should more than pay for the subsidies, plus sometimes the government just isn't afraid of spending public money to ensure that the public can be informed about the government's activities; think how much money can be saved from having to print pamphlets, fliers, and forms.
The internet isn't just for trolling forums and watching Youtube.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493920</id>
	<title>Soshalism!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268747220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry, but do you mean to say that I may have to pay as much as $5-$10/month more in hard left socialist taxes for my broadband speed to increase by 1500\%?  Not gonna happen, America.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , but do you mean to say that I may have to pay as much as $ 5- $ 10/month more in hard left socialist taxes for my broadband speed to increase by 1500 \ % ?
Not gon na happen , America .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, but do you mean to say that I may have to pay as much as $5-$10/month more in hard left socialist taxes for my broadband speed to increase by 1500\%?
Not gonna happen, America.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31501508</id>
	<title>Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1268734440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Having lived in and visited countries with largely state-run telecom industry and then come home to the USA, I think it should be painfully obvious to all that government does not do a good job at running telecommunications.</p></div> </blockquote><p>There is more to an argument than stating a conclusion after claiming a rather dubious grounds for authority.</p><blockquote><div><p>And I'm going to punch the next person that tells me "Broadband is a right". The hell it is. It is a good, a service that must be paid for, same as healthcare.</p></div></blockquote><p>Elections are a service that must be paid for, as well, that doesn't mean that voting isn't a right. But nice false dichotomy, there.</p><p>A "right" is something that <i>society decides all people are entitled to</i>. Often, there are costs associated with providing it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having lived in and visited countries with largely state-run telecom industry and then come home to the USA , I think it should be painfully obvious to all that government does not do a good job at running telecommunications .
There is more to an argument than stating a conclusion after claiming a rather dubious grounds for authority.And I 'm going to punch the next person that tells me " Broadband is a right " .
The hell it is .
It is a good , a service that must be paid for , same as healthcare.Elections are a service that must be paid for , as well , that does n't mean that voting is n't a right .
But nice false dichotomy , there.A " right " is something that society decides all people are entitled to .
Often , there are costs associated with providing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having lived in and visited countries with largely state-run telecom industry and then come home to the USA, I think it should be painfully obvious to all that government does not do a good job at running telecommunications.
There is more to an argument than stating a conclusion after claiming a rather dubious grounds for authority.And I'm going to punch the next person that tells me "Broadband is a right".
The hell it is.
It is a good, a service that must be paid for, same as healthcare.Elections are a service that must be paid for, as well, that doesn't mean that voting isn't a right.
But nice false dichotomy, there.A "right" is something that society decides all people are entitled to.
Often, there are costs associated with providing it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31505774</id>
	<title>Re:Governments never reduce costs</title>
	<author>metaforest</author>
	<datestamp>1268818500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> You may or may not like big businesses but businesses are usually very good at reducing costs, governments are not (the reason that isn't true with ISPs or cable companies is because they don't have any competition - most people live where there is a de facto ISP monopoly).</p></div><p>No.  They are really good at EXTERNALIZING costs.</p><p>Governments have a much harder time doing that.  So we see the full bill up front.</p><p>The way big business does it we get the full bill many years later when the Superfund cleanup is costed out.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You may or may not like big businesses but businesses are usually very good at reducing costs , governments are not ( the reason that is n't true with ISPs or cable companies is because they do n't have any competition - most people live where there is a de facto ISP monopoly ) .No .
They are really good at EXTERNALIZING costs.Governments have a much harder time doing that .
So we see the full bill up front.The way big business does it we get the full bill many years later when the Superfund cleanup is costed out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> You may or may not like big businesses but businesses are usually very good at reducing costs, governments are not (the reason that isn't true with ISPs or cable companies is because they don't have any competition - most people live where there is a de facto ISP monopoly).No.
They are really good at EXTERNALIZING costs.Governments have a much harder time doing that.
So we see the full bill up front.The way big business does it we get the full bill many years later when the Superfund cleanup is costed out.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31496026</id>
	<title>Re:Trolling? Good lord.</title>
	<author>Sancho</author>
	<datestamp>1268755860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For that matter, the "Overrated" moderation is used when a post is moderated way up and the content is obviously not that great or wrong. It is not used to drop a "Score:1" down to 0. When I moderate I try not to drop Score:2's to 1 as well, as most people read so anything 3 and above displays, so they still wouldn't see that post.</p> </div><p>You know that the score you see and the score I see can be different, right?  You can change the value of a moderation in your preferences.  For example, I changed Funny mods to be negative, because I can't stand the "funny" one-liner posts that get so much attention on every story.  It made Slashdot way more readable.</p><p>So I might give a bonus for insightful, upping the score (from my perspective) of a poorly moderated post.  I can slap Overrated on it to drop it back DOWN to a 2.  But from your perspective, it drops it from a 2 to a 1.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For that matter , the " Overrated " moderation is used when a post is moderated way up and the content is obviously not that great or wrong .
It is not used to drop a " Score : 1 " down to 0 .
When I moderate I try not to drop Score : 2 's to 1 as well , as most people read so anything 3 and above displays , so they still would n't see that post .
You know that the score you see and the score I see can be different , right ?
You can change the value of a moderation in your preferences .
For example , I changed Funny mods to be negative , because I ca n't stand the " funny " one-liner posts that get so much attention on every story .
It made Slashdot way more readable.So I might give a bonus for insightful , upping the score ( from my perspective ) of a poorly moderated post .
I can slap Overrated on it to drop it back DOWN to a 2 .
But from your perspective , it drops it from a 2 to a 1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For that matter, the "Overrated" moderation is used when a post is moderated way up and the content is obviously not that great or wrong.
It is not used to drop a "Score:1" down to 0.
When I moderate I try not to drop Score:2's to 1 as well, as most people read so anything 3 and above displays, so they still wouldn't see that post.
You know that the score you see and the score I see can be different, right?
You can change the value of a moderation in your preferences.
For example, I changed Funny mods to be negative, because I can't stand the "funny" one-liner posts that get so much attention on every story.
It made Slashdot way more readable.So I might give a bonus for insightful, upping the score (from my perspective) of a poorly moderated post.
I can slap Overrated on it to drop it back DOWN to a 2.
But from your perspective, it drops it from a 2 to a 1.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31498982</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, there's a shock!</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1268766660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please, the US government has does ten's of thousands of projects every day, mostly it works fine.</p><p>Of course, we have people like you that read a summary of information and a quote from someone who isn't really qualified and you scream the government doesn't work.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please , the US government has does ten 's of thousands of projects every day , mostly it works fine.Of course , we have people like you that read a summary of information and a quote from someone who is n't really qualified and you scream the government does n't work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please, the US government has does ten's of thousands of projects every day, mostly it works fine.Of course, we have people like you that read a summary of information and a quote from someone who isn't really qualified and you scream the government doesn't work.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494796</id>
	<title>Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1268751480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And I'm going to punch the next person that tells me "Broadband is a right". </i></p><p>I hope you're a kung-fu black belt, because since a recent survey said 80\% do consider it a right (even though I don't), you're going to be vastly outnumbered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I 'm going to punch the next person that tells me " Broadband is a right " .
I hope you 're a kung-fu black belt , because since a recent survey said 80 \ % do consider it a right ( even though I do n't ) , you 're going to be vastly outnumbered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I'm going to punch the next person that tells me "Broadband is a right".
I hope you're a kung-fu black belt, because since a recent survey said 80\% do consider it a right (even though I don't), you're going to be vastly outnumbered.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495440</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't this just a LITTLE premature?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1268753760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So the text has been out for several hours and this guy flipped through it (you can't honestly read 357 pages of children's fiction in that time, let alone government policy)</i></p><p>Maybe you can't but there are those of us who can rip through a 200 page novel in 2-3 hours. Agreed, it would be hard to read government gobbledygook in that limited time, but you could skim and get the gist of most of that in 3 or 4 hours, provided you're a hyperlex. I would think that a whole lot of slashdotters are hyperlexic and very few dyslexic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the text has been out for several hours and this guy flipped through it ( you ca n't honestly read 357 pages of children 's fiction in that time , let alone government policy ) Maybe you ca n't but there are those of us who can rip through a 200 page novel in 2-3 hours .
Agreed , it would be hard to read government gobbledygook in that limited time , but you could skim and get the gist of most of that in 3 or 4 hours , provided you 're a hyperlex .
I would think that a whole lot of slashdotters are hyperlexic and very few dyslexic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the text has been out for several hours and this guy flipped through it (you can't honestly read 357 pages of children's fiction in that time, let alone government policy)Maybe you can't but there are those of us who can rip through a 200 page novel in 2-3 hours.
Agreed, it would be hard to read government gobbledygook in that limited time, but you could skim and get the gist of most of that in 3 or 4 hours, provided you're a hyperlex.
I would think that a whole lot of slashdotters are hyperlexic and very few dyslexic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31501058</id>
	<title>Re:Last Mile</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1268732340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Here's what I would do: cities and towns provide the infrastructure for the last mile.</p></div></blockquote><p>In the western US, there are innumerable areas, many quite heavily populated, which are not incorporated into a city.</p><p>So, at the very least, you'd have to do this at the County level...  Then you have problems with large counties servicing a couple big cities, and completely ignoring the less densely populated areas, knowing it's cheaper, and they'll get 90\% of the people happy, and voting for them again...  There are innumerable recognized cases of counties siphoning off tax money from less populated areas, and giving most of it to the large cities.</p><p>So, I'd say you're screwed either way...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's what I would do : cities and towns provide the infrastructure for the last mile.In the western US , there are innumerable areas , many quite heavily populated , which are not incorporated into a city.So , at the very least , you 'd have to do this at the County level... Then you have problems with large counties servicing a couple big cities , and completely ignoring the less densely populated areas , knowing it 's cheaper , and they 'll get 90 \ % of the people happy , and voting for them again... There are innumerable recognized cases of counties siphoning off tax money from less populated areas , and giving most of it to the large cities.So , I 'd say you 're screwed either way.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's what I would do: cities and towns provide the infrastructure for the last mile.In the western US, there are innumerable areas, many quite heavily populated, which are not incorporated into a city.So, at the very least, you'd have to do this at the County level...  Then you have problems with large counties servicing a couple big cities, and completely ignoring the less densely populated areas, knowing it's cheaper, and they'll get 90\% of the people happy, and voting for them again...  There are innumerable recognized cases of counties siphoning off tax money from less populated areas, and giving most of it to the large cities.So, I'd say you're screwed either way...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31498122</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't this just a LITTLE premature?</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1268763360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So the text has been out for several hours and this guy flipped through it (you can't honestly read 357 pages of children's fiction in that time, let alone government policy) enough to find a few stated ideas for taxes, and all of a sudden it's a net loss for consumers?</p></div><p>Do you think there's going to be a plot twist or something where the understanding of the previous 200 pages is turned on its end? My view is that odds are very good that if you find something in a bill, that thing is not going to be invalidated by other parts of the bill.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So the text has been out for several hours and this guy flipped through it ( you ca n't honestly read 357 pages of children 's fiction in that time , let alone government policy ) enough to find a few stated ideas for taxes , and all of a sudden it 's a net loss for consumers ? Do you think there 's going to be a plot twist or something where the understanding of the previous 200 pages is turned on its end ?
My view is that odds are very good that if you find something in a bill , that thing is not going to be invalidated by other parts of the bill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the text has been out for several hours and this guy flipped through it (you can't honestly read 357 pages of children's fiction in that time, let alone government policy) enough to find a few stated ideas for taxes, and all of a sudden it's a net loss for consumers?Do you think there's going to be a plot twist or something where the understanding of the previous 200 pages is turned on its end?
My view is that odds are very good that if you find something in a bill, that thing is not going to be invalidated by other parts of the bill.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31497638</id>
	<title>Re:Government Services</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268761500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Everybody wants services (public schools, Medicare, military, etc), nobody wants to pay taxes.</p></div><p>Speak for yourself. I don't want any of those things.......</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everybody wants services ( public schools , Medicare , military , etc ) , nobody wants to pay taxes.Speak for yourself .
I do n't want any of those things...... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everybody wants services (public schools, Medicare, military, etc), nobody wants to pay taxes.Speak for yourself.
I don't want any of those things.......
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31501338</id>
	<title>Re:What about the backbones and the servers?</title>
	<author>sonicmerlin</author>
	<datestamp>1268733600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Aside from the fact that the FCC's goal is idiotically unambitious and for show because cable companies' upgrade to DOCSIS 3 would bring 100mbit to 100+ million even without any government interference by 2020, you *will* be provided with an option for higher upload speeds from your cable provider.  Currently upstream bonding is still being tested, but the cable co's are just about finished testing it out and will be ready to roll it out soon (as in near the end of this year or start of next year).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Aside from the fact that the FCC 's goal is idiotically unambitious and for show because cable companies ' upgrade to DOCSIS 3 would bring 100mbit to 100 + million even without any government interference by 2020 , you * will * be provided with an option for higher upload speeds from your cable provider .
Currently upstream bonding is still being tested , but the cable co 's are just about finished testing it out and will be ready to roll it out soon ( as in near the end of this year or start of next year ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aside from the fact that the FCC's goal is idiotically unambitious and for show because cable companies' upgrade to DOCSIS 3 would bring 100mbit to 100+ million even without any government interference by 2020, you *will* be provided with an option for higher upload speeds from your cable provider.
Currently upstream bonding is still being tested, but the cable co's are just about finished testing it out and will be ready to roll it out soon (as in near the end of this year or start of next year).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494304</id>
	<title>Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME</title>
	<author>Jawn98685</author>
	<datestamp>1268749260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Having lived in and visited countries with largely state-run telecom industry and then come home to the USA, I think it should be painfully obvious to all that government does <b>not</b> do a good job at running telecommunications. I know this isn't an attempt at running a telecom, but it sounds like they are going to screw the pooch just by trying to <i>influence</i> the market. The power of the FCC to f-things up is just that immense.</p><p>And I'm going to punch the next person that tells me "Broadband is a right". The hell it is. It is a good, a service that must be paid for, same as healthcare. You can not have a right to something that is non-free. Now I'm open to discussion on whether the state should pay for people to have a certain good, but see the above on how well states run telecoms.</p></div><p>Erm..., you've got it wrong. In parts of the U.S. the electrical (and other) utilities are operated by a government entity, a "public utility district" or P.U.D. In other places, the electrical utilities, at least, are run by profiteers. Guess which system works better? And by better, we mean cheaper, more reliable, and of higher quality. That's right, all of the above. The reason for this is simple - accountability. In a marketplace that defines a natural monopoly, the mythical "invisible hand" of market economics is, de facto, not in play. Consumers can't shop for a better deal and, not being share holders, have no other influence on the provider. The P.U.D. customer, on the other hand, has the equivalent of share holder status. He/she has a vote that will elect the officials who will run the "company". The officials' jobs are tied to the customers' satisfaction above all else. And guess what? It works.
<br> <br>
So why should telecom be any different? Socialize the ownership and operation of the infrastructure, and let the market, now open to all via that infrastructure, determine what sells and what doesn't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having lived in and visited countries with largely state-run telecom industry and then come home to the USA , I think it should be painfully obvious to all that government does not do a good job at running telecommunications .
I know this is n't an attempt at running a telecom , but it sounds like they are going to screw the pooch just by trying to influence the market .
The power of the FCC to f-things up is just that immense.And I 'm going to punch the next person that tells me " Broadband is a right " .
The hell it is .
It is a good , a service that must be paid for , same as healthcare .
You can not have a right to something that is non-free .
Now I 'm open to discussion on whether the state should pay for people to have a certain good , but see the above on how well states run telecoms.Erm... , you 've got it wrong .
In parts of the U.S. the electrical ( and other ) utilities are operated by a government entity , a " public utility district " or P.U.D .
In other places , the electrical utilities , at least , are run by profiteers .
Guess which system works better ?
And by better , we mean cheaper , more reliable , and of higher quality .
That 's right , all of the above .
The reason for this is simple - accountability .
In a marketplace that defines a natural monopoly , the mythical " invisible hand " of market economics is , de facto , not in play .
Consumers ca n't shop for a better deal and , not being share holders , have no other influence on the provider .
The P.U.D .
customer , on the other hand , has the equivalent of share holder status .
He/she has a vote that will elect the officials who will run the " company " .
The officials ' jobs are tied to the customers ' satisfaction above all else .
And guess what ?
It works .
So why should telecom be any different ?
Socialize the ownership and operation of the infrastructure , and let the market , now open to all via that infrastructure , determine what sells and what does n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having lived in and visited countries with largely state-run telecom industry and then come home to the USA, I think it should be painfully obvious to all that government does not do a good job at running telecommunications.
I know this isn't an attempt at running a telecom, but it sounds like they are going to screw the pooch just by trying to influence the market.
The power of the FCC to f-things up is just that immense.And I'm going to punch the next person that tells me "Broadband is a right".
The hell it is.
It is a good, a service that must be paid for, same as healthcare.
You can not have a right to something that is non-free.
Now I'm open to discussion on whether the state should pay for people to have a certain good, but see the above on how well states run telecoms.Erm..., you've got it wrong.
In parts of the U.S. the electrical (and other) utilities are operated by a government entity, a "public utility district" or P.U.D.
In other places, the electrical utilities, at least, are run by profiteers.
Guess which system works better?
And by better, we mean cheaper, more reliable, and of higher quality.
That's right, all of the above.
The reason for this is simple - accountability.
In a marketplace that defines a natural monopoly, the mythical "invisible hand" of market economics is, de facto, not in play.
Consumers can't shop for a better deal and, not being share holders, have no other influence on the provider.
The P.U.D.
customer, on the other hand, has the equivalent of share holder status.
He/she has a vote that will elect the officials who will run the "company".
The officials' jobs are tied to the customers' satisfaction above all else.
And guess what?
It works.
So why should telecom be any different?
Socialize the ownership and operation of the infrastructure, and let the market, now open to all via that infrastructure, determine what sells and what doesn't.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494136</id>
	<title>Re:Government Services</title>
	<author>Krneki</author>
	<datestamp>1268748420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Government provides a service - in this case, asking/forcing someone else to provide a service - and people are shocked that it will cost money?  What kind of Communist paradise do these people live in where Government doesn't cost anything?




Everybody wants services (public schools, Medicare, military, etc), nobody wants to pay taxes.</p></div><p>I have 20/20 MB optic line in my house for 26E a month. </p><p>

My city has 10.000 inhabitants, so the price for fiber optic in a bigger environment should be even cheaper.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Government provides a service - in this case , asking/forcing someone else to provide a service - and people are shocked that it will cost money ?
What kind of Communist paradise do these people live in where Government does n't cost anything ?
Everybody wants services ( public schools , Medicare , military , etc ) , nobody wants to pay taxes.I have 20/20 MB optic line in my house for 26E a month .
My city has 10.000 inhabitants , so the price for fiber optic in a bigger environment should be even cheaper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Government provides a service - in this case, asking/forcing someone else to provide a service - and people are shocked that it will cost money?
What kind of Communist paradise do these people live in where Government doesn't cost anything?
Everybody wants services (public schools, Medicare, military, etc), nobody wants to pay taxes.I have 20/20 MB optic line in my house for 26E a month.
My city has 10.000 inhabitants, so the price for fiber optic in a bigger environment should be even cheaper.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495220</id>
	<title>Re:Government Services</title>
	<author>Maxmin</author>
	<datestamp>1268752920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The government has already cost us <a href="http://www.newnetworks.com/BroadbandScandalIntro.htm" title="newnetworks.com">$200</a> [newnetworks.com]-<a href="http://www.newnetworks.com/broadbandcommentsrelease.htm" title="newnetworks.com">$300 billion</a> [newnetworks.com] in "telecommunications fees" for this very service, high-speed broadband, during the 1990s.<p>That plan cost us dearly, but never materialized.  We shouldn't be paying for it again, but it sounds like we are about to, without a choice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The government has already cost us $ 200 [ newnetworks.com ] - $ 300 billion [ newnetworks.com ] in " telecommunications fees " for this very service , high-speed broadband , during the 1990s.That plan cost us dearly , but never materialized .
We should n't be paying for it again , but it sounds like we are about to , without a choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government has already cost us $200 [newnetworks.com]-$300 billion [newnetworks.com] in "telecommunications fees" for this very service, high-speed broadband, during the 1990s.That plan cost us dearly, but never materialized.
We shouldn't be paying for it again, but it sounds like we are about to, without a choice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494980</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't this just a LITTLE premature?</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1268752140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So the text has been out for several hours and this guy flipped through it (you can't honestly read 357 pages of children's fiction in that time, let alone government policy) enough to find a few stated ideas for taxes, and all of a sudden it's a net loss for consumers?</i></p><p>Correct!  See, you must remember, the FCC is obviously run by pinko communists.  Plus, this is Slashdot, home of the knee-jerk nerd who, when he isn't jacking off to pictures of ESR posing with his handguns, is whining about government taxation and intervention into markets... until, of course, it's Microsoft or some other big baddy, at which point the government must step in and protect their pasty little asses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the text has been out for several hours and this guy flipped through it ( you ca n't honestly read 357 pages of children 's fiction in that time , let alone government policy ) enough to find a few stated ideas for taxes , and all of a sudden it 's a net loss for consumers ? Correct !
See , you must remember , the FCC is obviously run by pinko communists .
Plus , this is Slashdot , home of the knee-jerk nerd who , when he is n't jacking off to pictures of ESR posing with his handguns , is whining about government taxation and intervention into markets... until , of course , it 's Microsoft or some other big baddy , at which point the government must step in and protect their pasty little asses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the text has been out for several hours and this guy flipped through it (you can't honestly read 357 pages of children's fiction in that time, let alone government policy) enough to find a few stated ideas for taxes, and all of a sudden it's a net loss for consumers?Correct!
See, you must remember, the FCC is obviously run by pinko communists.
Plus, this is Slashdot, home of the knee-jerk nerd who, when he isn't jacking off to pictures of ESR posing with his handguns, is whining about government taxation and intervention into markets... until, of course, it's Microsoft or some other big baddy, at which point the government must step in and protect their pasty little asses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494838</id>
	<title>Re:Why do poor people need broadband internet</title>
	<author>imakemusic</author>
	<datestamp>1268751600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well a week ago <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2010/0309/Is-Internet-access-a-human-right-Top-10-nations-that-say-yes" title="csmonitor.com">most people</a> [csmonitor.com] (76\% of americans, 87\% of chinese) think it is or should be a right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well a week ago most people [ csmonitor.com ] ( 76 \ % of americans , 87 \ % of chinese ) think it is or should be a right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well a week ago most people [csmonitor.com] (76\% of americans, 87\% of chinese) think it is or should be a right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495910</id>
	<title>dogmatixpsych never reads</title>
	<author>copponex</author>
	<datestamp>1268755380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Privatization! All the same mistakes the government makes, plus the cost of profits, administrative overhead, plain old greed, no transparency, and no incentive to make things right.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The Pentagon&rsquo;s reliance on outside contractors in Iraq is proportionately far larger than in any previous conflict, and it has fueled charges that this <b>outsourcing has led to overbilling, fraud and shoddy and unsafe work that has endangered and even killed American troops.</b> The role of armed security contractors has also raised new legal and political questions about whether the United States has become too dependent on private armed forces on the 21st-century battlefield...</p><p>&ldquo;This is unprecedented,&rdquo; [Charles Tiefer] added. &ldquo;It was considered an all-out imperative by the administration to keep troop levels low, particularly in the beginning of the war, and one way that was done was to shift money and manpower to contractors. But that has exposed the military to greater risks from contractor waste and abuse.&rdquo;</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/washington/12contractors.html" title="nytimes.com">http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/washington/12contractors.html</a> [nytimes.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>"Right now the government is paying health insurance plans that administer Medicare Advantage, on average, 12 percent more per person than it spends on patients enrolled in traditional Medicare,"</b> said AMA Board Member Cecil Wilson, MD. "With Medicare payments to doctors who care for seniors slated for a 10 percent cut next year, Congress must put the money used to subsidize the insurance industry to better use."</p><p>At the AMA's Annual Meeting late last month, America's physicians sent a resounding message to Congress - eliminate the Medicare Advantage subsidy. AMA policy clearly states that subsidies to private plans offering alternative coverage to Medicare beneficiaries should be eliminated, and that these private Medicare plans should compete with the regular Medicare program on a fiscally neutral basis.</p><p>"While groups that truly represent physicians fight to preserve all seniors' access to health care by stopping Medicare physician payment cuts, the insurance industry and its partners are solely focused on preserving their $65 billion government subsidy," said Dr. Wilson.</p> </div><p> <a href="http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/76805.php" title="medicalnewstoday.com">http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/76805.php</a> [medicalnewstoday.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Engineers hired to investigate the cause of September's massive Big Dig tunnel leak have discovered that the project is riddled with hundreds of leaks that are pouring millions of gallons of water into the $14.6 billion tunnel system.</p><p>While none of the leaks is as large as the fissure that snarled traffic for miles on Interstate 93 northbound in September, the breaches appear to permeate the subterranean road system, calling into question the quality of construction and managerial oversight provided by Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff on the massive highway project.</p><p>Finding and fixing all the leaks will take years, perhaps more than a decade, said Jack K. Lemley, an internationally known consultant hired by the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority to investigate the problem. Just repairing the section of wall where the September leak occurred will take up to two months and require closing of traffic lanes.</p><p><b>The engineers also said they have discovered documents showing that Bechtel managers were aware that the wall breached this fall was deficient from the moment it was built in the late 1990s, yet did not order it replaced and did not inform state officials of the situation.</b></p> </div><p> <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/11/10/big\_dig\_found\_riddled\_with\_leaks/" title="boston.com">http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/11/10/big\_dig\_found\_riddled\_with\_leaks/</a> [boston.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Privatization !
All the same mistakes the government makes , plus the cost of profits , administrative overhead , plain old greed , no transparency , and no incentive to make things right.The Pentagon    s reliance on outside contractors in Iraq is proportionately far larger than in any previous conflict , and it has fueled charges that this outsourcing has led to overbilling , fraud and shoddy and unsafe work that has endangered and even killed American troops .
The role of armed security contractors has also raised new legal and political questions about whether the United States has become too dependent on private armed forces on the 21st-century battlefield...    This is unprecedented ,    [ Charles Tiefer ] added .
   It was considered an all-out imperative by the administration to keep troop levels low , particularly in the beginning of the war , and one way that was done was to shift money and manpower to contractors .
But that has exposed the military to greater risks from contractor waste and abuse.    http : //www.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/washington/12contractors.html [ nytimes.com ] " Right now the government is paying health insurance plans that administer Medicare Advantage , on average , 12 percent more per person than it spends on patients enrolled in traditional Medicare , " said AMA Board Member Cecil Wilson , MD .
" With Medicare payments to doctors who care for seniors slated for a 10 percent cut next year , Congress must put the money used to subsidize the insurance industry to better use .
" At the AMA 's Annual Meeting late last month , America 's physicians sent a resounding message to Congress - eliminate the Medicare Advantage subsidy .
AMA policy clearly states that subsidies to private plans offering alternative coverage to Medicare beneficiaries should be eliminated , and that these private Medicare plans should compete with the regular Medicare program on a fiscally neutral basis .
" While groups that truly represent physicians fight to preserve all seniors ' access to health care by stopping Medicare physician payment cuts , the insurance industry and its partners are solely focused on preserving their $ 65 billion government subsidy , " said Dr. Wilson. http : //www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/76805.php [ medicalnewstoday.com ] Engineers hired to investigate the cause of September 's massive Big Dig tunnel leak have discovered that the project is riddled with hundreds of leaks that are pouring millions of gallons of water into the $ 14.6 billion tunnel system.While none of the leaks is as large as the fissure that snarled traffic for miles on Interstate 93 northbound in September , the breaches appear to permeate the subterranean road system , calling into question the quality of construction and managerial oversight provided by Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff on the massive highway project.Finding and fixing all the leaks will take years , perhaps more than a decade , said Jack K. Lemley , an internationally known consultant hired by the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority to investigate the problem .
Just repairing the section of wall where the September leak occurred will take up to two months and require closing of traffic lanes.The engineers also said they have discovered documents showing that Bechtel managers were aware that the wall breached this fall was deficient from the moment it was built in the late 1990s , yet did not order it replaced and did not inform state officials of the situation .
http : //www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/11/10/big \ _dig \ _found \ _riddled \ _with \ _leaks/ [ boston.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Privatization!
All the same mistakes the government makes, plus the cost of profits, administrative overhead, plain old greed, no transparency, and no incentive to make things right.The Pentagon’s reliance on outside contractors in Iraq is proportionately far larger than in any previous conflict, and it has fueled charges that this outsourcing has led to overbilling, fraud and shoddy and unsafe work that has endangered and even killed American troops.
The role of armed security contractors has also raised new legal and political questions about whether the United States has become too dependent on private armed forces on the 21st-century battlefield...“This is unprecedented,” [Charles Tiefer] added.
“It was considered an all-out imperative by the administration to keep troop levels low, particularly in the beginning of the war, and one way that was done was to shift money and manpower to contractors.
But that has exposed the military to greater risks from contractor waste and abuse.” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/washington/12contractors.html [nytimes.com]  "Right now the government is paying health insurance plans that administer Medicare Advantage, on average, 12 percent more per person than it spends on patients enrolled in traditional Medicare," said AMA Board Member Cecil Wilson, MD.
"With Medicare payments to doctors who care for seniors slated for a 10 percent cut next year, Congress must put the money used to subsidize the insurance industry to better use.
"At the AMA's Annual Meeting late last month, America's physicians sent a resounding message to Congress - eliminate the Medicare Advantage subsidy.
AMA policy clearly states that subsidies to private plans offering alternative coverage to Medicare beneficiaries should be eliminated, and that these private Medicare plans should compete with the regular Medicare program on a fiscally neutral basis.
"While groups that truly represent physicians fight to preserve all seniors' access to health care by stopping Medicare physician payment cuts, the insurance industry and its partners are solely focused on preserving their $65 billion government subsidy," said Dr. Wilson.  http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/76805.php [medicalnewstoday.com] Engineers hired to investigate the cause of September's massive Big Dig tunnel leak have discovered that the project is riddled with hundreds of leaks that are pouring millions of gallons of water into the $14.6 billion tunnel system.While none of the leaks is as large as the fissure that snarled traffic for miles on Interstate 93 northbound in September, the breaches appear to permeate the subterranean road system, calling into question the quality of construction and managerial oversight provided by Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff on the massive highway project.Finding and fixing all the leaks will take years, perhaps more than a decade, said Jack K. Lemley, an internationally known consultant hired by the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority to investigate the problem.
Just repairing the section of wall where the September leak occurred will take up to two months and require closing of traffic lanes.The engineers also said they have discovered documents showing that Bechtel managers were aware that the wall breached this fall was deficient from the moment it was built in the late 1990s, yet did not order it replaced and did not inform state officials of the situation.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/11/10/big\_dig\_found\_riddled\_with\_leaks/ [boston.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31499556</id>
	<title>Re:Governments never reduce costs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268768940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You may or may not like big businesses but businesses are usually very good at reducing costs, governments are not (the reason that isn't true with ISPs or cable companies is because they don't have any competition - most people live where there is a de facto ISP monopoly). I don't know why so many people - Republicans and Democrats and Independents - want the government to do more and spend more for us.</p></div><p>Yes business and government have different goals, or at least should.  Large business' goal at the moment seems to be make as much money in the short term as possible.  If business could make money by killing people they will do it (and have done it, frankly) while arguing at the same time that they have a legal responsibility to their share holders to do so.  They also don't seem to care about the mid to long term.  Anything beyond about a year appears to be long term.</p><p>Call me silly, but I don't want my government to have the same goal as business and, generally speaking, I think having government restrict business is a good idea.  I want a society that is good to live in 3 months from now, 3 years from now, 3 decades from, and 3 centuries from now.  Running government like a business will not provide this for me, or my family, or my friends, or all the other citizens in the country.</p><p>Although this is difficult to do properly, the alternative to trying to having a government is child labour, indentured servitude, slavery, Somalia, etc, all things that can be excellent at making a profit but make the society a hell hole to live in.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You may or may not like big businesses but businesses are usually very good at reducing costs , governments are not ( the reason that is n't true with ISPs or cable companies is because they do n't have any competition - most people live where there is a de facto ISP monopoly ) .
I do n't know why so many people - Republicans and Democrats and Independents - want the government to do more and spend more for us.Yes business and government have different goals , or at least should .
Large business ' goal at the moment seems to be make as much money in the short term as possible .
If business could make money by killing people they will do it ( and have done it , frankly ) while arguing at the same time that they have a legal responsibility to their share holders to do so .
They also do n't seem to care about the mid to long term .
Anything beyond about a year appears to be long term.Call me silly , but I do n't want my government to have the same goal as business and , generally speaking , I think having government restrict business is a good idea .
I want a society that is good to live in 3 months from now , 3 years from now , 3 decades from , and 3 centuries from now .
Running government like a business will not provide this for me , or my family , or my friends , or all the other citizens in the country.Although this is difficult to do properly , the alternative to trying to having a government is child labour , indentured servitude , slavery , Somalia , etc , all things that can be excellent at making a profit but make the society a hell hole to live in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may or may not like big businesses but businesses are usually very good at reducing costs, governments are not (the reason that isn't true with ISPs or cable companies is because they don't have any competition - most people live where there is a de facto ISP monopoly).
I don't know why so many people - Republicans and Democrats and Independents - want the government to do more and spend more for us.Yes business and government have different goals, or at least should.
Large business' goal at the moment seems to be make as much money in the short term as possible.
If business could make money by killing people they will do it (and have done it, frankly) while arguing at the same time that they have a legal responsibility to their share holders to do so.
They also don't seem to care about the mid to long term.
Anything beyond about a year appears to be long term.Call me silly, but I don't want my government to have the same goal as business and, generally speaking, I think having government restrict business is a good idea.
I want a society that is good to live in 3 months from now, 3 years from now, 3 decades from, and 3 centuries from now.
Running government like a business will not provide this for me, or my family, or my friends, or all the other citizens in the country.Although this is difficult to do properly, the alternative to trying to having a government is child labour, indentured servitude, slavery, Somalia, etc, all things that can be excellent at making a profit but make the society a hell hole to live in.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31497162</id>
	<title>The Right to put a Router on my Roof.</title>
	<author>bobs666</author>
	<datestamp>1268759820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have the right to buy a gun.
I want the right to put a router
on my roof with the range, 4 to 7 miles,
to be useful.

<br> <br>
We have seen that poring money at the industry telecommunications has not worked.
<br> <br>

This  will give me free local, +-100 mile range, cell phone / texting / email.
It will also level the field for
ISP's  so that there can be 100's
not 1 or 2 in any given area.

<br> <br>
15 years ago Apple computer asked for
part of the spectrum that would provide
many 10Mbit channels, in a design for a
metropolitan area.
<br> <br>
Ya I have to pay for hardware, and power.
I have to hope other people will do the same.
I will perhaps want to pay an ISP.
<br> <br>
Ya, its not free, but I bet its a lot less
then that people pay now.
<br> <br>
Its long over due for the FCC to give us this Right.  And to define fare use, so that  compliant hardware can be built to deliver the last mile to the consumer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have the right to buy a gun .
I want the right to put a router on my roof with the range , 4 to 7 miles , to be useful .
We have seen that poring money at the industry telecommunications has not worked .
This will give me free local , + -100 mile range , cell phone / texting / email .
It will also level the field for ISP 's so that there can be 100 's not 1 or 2 in any given area .
15 years ago Apple computer asked for part of the spectrum that would provide many 10Mbit channels , in a design for a metropolitan area .
Ya I have to pay for hardware , and power .
I have to hope other people will do the same .
I will perhaps want to pay an ISP .
Ya , its not free , but I bet its a lot less then that people pay now .
Its long over due for the FCC to give us this Right .
And to define fare use , so that compliant hardware can be built to deliver the last mile to the consumer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have the right to buy a gun.
I want the right to put a router
on my roof with the range, 4 to 7 miles,
to be useful.
We have seen that poring money at the industry telecommunications has not worked.
This  will give me free local, +-100 mile range, cell phone / texting / email.
It will also level the field for
ISP's  so that there can be 100's
not 1 or 2 in any given area.
15 years ago Apple computer asked for
part of the spectrum that would provide
many 10Mbit channels, in a design for a
metropolitan area.
Ya I have to pay for hardware, and power.
I have to hope other people will do the same.
I will perhaps want to pay an ISP.
Ya, its not free, but I bet its a lot less
then that people pay now.
Its long over due for the FCC to give us this Right.
And to define fare use, so that  compliant hardware can be built to deliver the last mile to the consumer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493844</id>
	<title>Re:Socialist internetz</title>
	<author>Pojut</author>
	<datestamp>1268746680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or, looking at it from the optimist point of view, they could discover that the country in fact <b>doesn't</b> revolve around them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , looking at it from the optimist point of view , they could discover that the country in fact does n't revolve around them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, looking at it from the optimist point of view, they could discover that the country in fact doesn't revolve around them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494080</id>
	<title>Re:Government Services</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268748120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What kind of Communist paradise do these people live in where Government doesn't cost anything?</p></div><p>These people don't live in a 'Communist paradise' but they do call themselves "Democrats."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What kind of Communist paradise do these people live in where Government does n't cost anything ? These people do n't live in a 'Communist paradise ' but they do call themselves " Democrats .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What kind of Communist paradise do these people live in where Government doesn't cost anything?These people don't live in a 'Communist paradise' but they do call themselves "Democrats.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493780</id>
	<title>Government Services</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268746080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Government provides a service - in this case, asking/forcing someone else to provide a service - and people are shocked that it will cost money?  What kind of Communist paradise do these people live in where Government doesn't cost anything?
<br> <br> <br>
Everybody wants services (public schools, Medicare, military, etc), nobody wants to pay taxes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Government provides a service - in this case , asking/forcing someone else to provide a service - and people are shocked that it will cost money ?
What kind of Communist paradise do these people live in where Government does n't cost anything ?
Everybody wants services ( public schools , Medicare , military , etc ) , nobody wants to pay taxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Government provides a service - in this case, asking/forcing someone else to provide a service - and people are shocked that it will cost money?
What kind of Communist paradise do these people live in where Government doesn't cost anything?
Everybody wants services (public schools, Medicare, military, etc), nobody wants to pay taxes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31497828</id>
	<title>Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME</title>
	<author>david\_thornley</author>
	<datestamp>1268762220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You can not have a right to something that is non-free.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Here in the US, I have a constitutionally protected "right to bear arms".  This doesn't mean that the government has to give me a rifle, it means I can go out and buy one myself, and there can be no insuperable legal obstacles to my doing so.  Similarly, although I have a constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press, if I want to publish on paper I need to buy one or rent one or contract with somebody who owns a printing press or equivalent.  I have the right of free speech, but I need to bring my own soapbox.
</p><p>
It might be more technically accurate to describe this as "the right to buy broadband on certain terms", but that's not as catchy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can not have a right to something that is non-free .
Here in the US , I have a constitutionally protected " right to bear arms " .
This does n't mean that the government has to give me a rifle , it means I can go out and buy one myself , and there can be no insuperable legal obstacles to my doing so .
Similarly , although I have a constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press , if I want to publish on paper I need to buy one or rent one or contract with somebody who owns a printing press or equivalent .
I have the right of free speech , but I need to bring my own soapbox .
It might be more technically accurate to describe this as " the right to buy broadband on certain terms " , but that 's not as catchy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can not have a right to something that is non-free.
Here in the US, I have a constitutionally protected "right to bear arms".
This doesn't mean that the government has to give me a rifle, it means I can go out and buy one myself, and there can be no insuperable legal obstacles to my doing so.
Similarly, although I have a constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press, if I want to publish on paper I need to buy one or rent one or contract with somebody who owns a printing press or equivalent.
I have the right of free speech, but I need to bring my own soapbox.
It might be more technically accurate to describe this as "the right to buy broadband on certain terms", but that's not as catchy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493770</id>
	<title>Nothing new</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268745960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>...and will just add more retards to the internuts causing retardedness to overflow, which will destroy the world, and probably the solar system.</i> <br> <br>

You mean Eternal September?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...and will just add more retards to the internuts causing retardedness to overflow , which will destroy the world , and probably the solar system .
You mean Eternal September ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and will just add more retards to the internuts causing retardedness to overflow, which will destroy the world, and probably the solar system.
You mean Eternal September?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493942</id>
	<title>Sigh</title>
	<author>sonicmerlin</author>
	<datestamp>1268747340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been following news and speculation surrounding the plan for the better part of a year now.  There were numerous tell-tale signs that this was going to be a flop, like Blair Levin, the head of the NBP team, discounting the importance of line-sharing, despite it being touted as the single-most effective means of promoting competition in the ISP industry by a Harvard-Berkman study commissioned by the FCC.

</p><p>Also, Dave Burstein is amazing.  The guy knows more about telecom than anyone else in Washington.  I highly recommend you read his website at DSLPrime.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been following news and speculation surrounding the plan for the better part of a year now .
There were numerous tell-tale signs that this was going to be a flop , like Blair Levin , the head of the NBP team , discounting the importance of line-sharing , despite it being touted as the single-most effective means of promoting competition in the ISP industry by a Harvard-Berkman study commissioned by the FCC .
Also , Dave Burstein is amazing .
The guy knows more about telecom than anyone else in Washington .
I highly recommend you read his website at DSLPrime.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been following news and speculation surrounding the plan for the better part of a year now.
There were numerous tell-tale signs that this was going to be a flop, like Blair Levin, the head of the NBP team, discounting the importance of line-sharing, despite it being touted as the single-most effective means of promoting competition in the ISP industry by a Harvard-Berkman study commissioned by the FCC.
Also, Dave Burstein is amazing.
The guy knows more about telecom than anyone else in Washington.
I highly recommend you read his website at DSLPrime.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494744</id>
	<title>Re:Death of broadcasting?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1268751360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If people weren't so selfish and would open their wifi networks (throttling when needed, or disconnecting those who abuse it), everyone in every metropolis could have free internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If people were n't so selfish and would open their wifi networks ( throttling when needed , or disconnecting those who abuse it ) , everyone in every metropolis could have free internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If people weren't so selfish and would open their wifi networks (throttling when needed, or disconnecting those who abuse it), everyone in every metropolis could have free internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494476</id>
	<title>Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1268750220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You can not have a right to something that is non-free.</p></div><p>Sure you can. Public defense attorneys, jury trials, and other requirements of the Constitution definitely aren't free.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can not have a right to something that is non-free.Sure you can .
Public defense attorneys , jury trials , and other requirements of the Constitution definitely are n't free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can not have a right to something that is non-free.Sure you can.
Public defense attorneys, jury trials, and other requirements of the Constitution definitely aren't free.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495540</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, there's a shock!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268754120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I'm hear from the public school system, I'm hear to help". Do you here me now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 'm hear from the public school system , I 'm hear to help " .
Do you here me now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I'm hear from the public school system, I'm hear to help".
Do you here me now?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493760</id>
	<title>Re:Socialist internetz</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268745840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But you love big-government. Which will it be? Big-Gov, or retarded bible thumping rednecks? Decisions decisions....hmmmmm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But you love big-government .
Which will it be ?
Big-Gov , or retarded bible thumping rednecks ?
Decisions decisions....hmmmmm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But you love big-government.
Which will it be?
Big-Gov, or retarded bible thumping rednecks?
Decisions decisions....hmmmmm</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31496014</id>
	<title>Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME</title>
	<author>Neuticle</author>
	<datestamp>1268755800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, the right to a trial by jury isn't free, and neither is a defense attorney. This is an odd case, but I still say this is free, in that it is free to the individual, and only not-free in that it places <i>limitations</i> on the government which might incur a cost. Many of the other rights work the same way, such as no-quartering-troops meaning the Army has to pay for barracks.</p><p>The state is not <i>forced</i> to provide you an attorney, because it is not <i>forced</i> to prosecute you. However, bringing you to trial is an action forced on you by the state. Since the state pays for the whole court system, judge, lawyers, buildings etc. out of taxes, if the State <i>chooses</i> to prosecute you, this guarantees that it can not make you pay again for something you (ostensibly a tax payer) have already paid for. Since defendants can't appoint their own judge and prosecutor, if the state uses public funds to prosecute, it must use public funds to defend.</p><p>Now if the state doesn't want to prosecute you, or if you voluntarily bring suit as a plaintiff, then you don't have any "right" to a lawyer.</p><p>I know it might seem like splitting hairs, but this is an important distinction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , the right to a trial by jury is n't free , and neither is a defense attorney .
This is an odd case , but I still say this is free , in that it is free to the individual , and only not-free in that it places limitations on the government which might incur a cost .
Many of the other rights work the same way , such as no-quartering-troops meaning the Army has to pay for barracks.The state is not forced to provide you an attorney , because it is not forced to prosecute you .
However , bringing you to trial is an action forced on you by the state .
Since the state pays for the whole court system , judge , lawyers , buildings etc .
out of taxes , if the State chooses to prosecute you , this guarantees that it can not make you pay again for something you ( ostensibly a tax payer ) have already paid for .
Since defendants ca n't appoint their own judge and prosecutor , if the state uses public funds to prosecute , it must use public funds to defend.Now if the state does n't want to prosecute you , or if you voluntarily bring suit as a plaintiff , then you do n't have any " right " to a lawyer.I know it might seem like splitting hairs , but this is an important distinction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, the right to a trial by jury isn't free, and neither is a defense attorney.
This is an odd case, but I still say this is free, in that it is free to the individual, and only not-free in that it places limitations on the government which might incur a cost.
Many of the other rights work the same way, such as no-quartering-troops meaning the Army has to pay for barracks.The state is not forced to provide you an attorney, because it is not forced to prosecute you.
However, bringing you to trial is an action forced on you by the state.
Since the state pays for the whole court system, judge, lawyers, buildings etc.
out of taxes, if the State chooses to prosecute you, this guarantees that it can not make you pay again for something you (ostensibly a tax payer) have already paid for.
Since defendants can't appoint their own judge and prosecutor, if the state uses public funds to prosecute, it must use public funds to defend.Now if the state doesn't want to prosecute you, or if you voluntarily bring suit as a plaintiff, then you don't have any "right" to a lawyer.I know it might seem like splitting hairs, but this is an important distinction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493778</id>
	<title>Re:Socialist internetz</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268746020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>As an atheist who lives in rural Illinois, where there are plenty of bible thumpers, I would be happy to have a much faster internet connection. It would also hopefully educate the uneducated masses here about such evil sites like <a href="http://www.pandasthumb.org/" title="pandasthumb.org" rel="nofollow">the pandas thumb</a> [pandasthumb.org] which would help them become less thumperish.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As an atheist who lives in rural Illinois , where there are plenty of bible thumpers , I would be happy to have a much faster internet connection .
It would also hopefully educate the uneducated masses here about such evil sites like the pandas thumb [ pandasthumb.org ] which would help them become less thumperish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an atheist who lives in rural Illinois, where there are plenty of bible thumpers, I would be happy to have a much faster internet connection.
It would also hopefully educate the uneducated masses here about such evil sites like the pandas thumb [pandasthumb.org] which would help them become less thumperish.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495124</id>
	<title>Re:Trolling? Good lord.</title>
	<author>Miseph</author>
	<datestamp>1268752620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You must be new here. Overrated is for when somebody makes a valid point that you disagree with, and you would rather shove them down and hope that nobody else catches it than actually deal with it. It's the fanboy rage mod.</p><p>For the record, I support removing over/under-rated altogether, as I don't think they actually contribute anything positive or useful. Posts with high ratings and poor content are rare, and also not that big a problem. The only use I've even seen for underrated is to achieve lulzy comment scores, like "+5, Off-Topic", but I don't think anybody has a serious use for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You must be new here .
Overrated is for when somebody makes a valid point that you disagree with , and you would rather shove them down and hope that nobody else catches it than actually deal with it .
It 's the fanboy rage mod.For the record , I support removing over/under-rated altogether , as I do n't think they actually contribute anything positive or useful .
Posts with high ratings and poor content are rare , and also not that big a problem .
The only use I 've even seen for underrated is to achieve lulzy comment scores , like " + 5 , Off-Topic " , but I do n't think anybody has a serious use for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must be new here.
Overrated is for when somebody makes a valid point that you disagree with, and you would rather shove them down and hope that nobody else catches it than actually deal with it.
It's the fanboy rage mod.For the record, I support removing over/under-rated altogether, as I don't think they actually contribute anything positive or useful.
Posts with high ratings and poor content are rare, and also not that big a problem.
The only use I've even seen for underrated is to achieve lulzy comment scores, like "+5, Off-Topic", but I don't think anybody has a serious use for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31498802</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, there's a shock!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268766060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So your parents paid for private? You're obviously a higher paid/better person now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So your parents paid for private ?
You 're obviously a higher paid/better person now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So your parents paid for private?
You're obviously a higher paid/better person now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31497326</id>
	<title>Re:Governments never reduce costs</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1268760420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;When a weak F1 passed through Amerin-served Cahokia across the river from St Louis, my friend Jeff was without power for over a month.<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;</p><p>In my state this Electricity Monopoly would be required to restore electricity to all customers within 2 days, or else be fined 1 million a day.  Your situation is a case of government not doing its job to *regulate* the natural monopoly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; When a weak F1 passed through Amerin-served Cahokia across the river from St Louis , my friend Jeff was without power for over a month. &gt; &gt; &gt; In my state this Electricity Monopoly would be required to restore electricity to all customers within 2 days , or else be fined 1 million a day .
Your situation is a case of government not doing its job to * regulate * the natural monopoly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;When a weak F1 passed through Amerin-served Cahokia across the river from St Louis, my friend Jeff was without power for over a month.&gt;&gt;&gt;In my state this Electricity Monopoly would be required to restore electricity to all customers within 2 days, or else be fined 1 million a day.
Your situation is a case of government not doing its job to *regulate* the natural monopoly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493768</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, there's a shock!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268745900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the business of government, as long as the money passes through your hands, <i>you win</i>. It doesn't matter where the money comes from or where it goes -- what matters is that it passes through your hands. The more money passing through your hands, the more you stand to exploit it for personal gain.</p><p>You're not in the business of government, are you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the business of government , as long as the money passes through your hands , you win .
It does n't matter where the money comes from or where it goes -- what matters is that it passes through your hands .
The more money passing through your hands , the more you stand to exploit it for personal gain.You 're not in the business of government , are you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the business of government, as long as the money passes through your hands, you win.
It doesn't matter where the money comes from or where it goes -- what matters is that it passes through your hands.
The more money passing through your hands, the more you stand to exploit it for personal gain.You're not in the business of government, are you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31496118</id>
	<title>Re:Last Mile</title>
	<author>webdog314</author>
	<datestamp>1268756220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Interesting. So the infrastructure for net connection becomes something like the water or gas pipe into my home. The problem with this analogy is that gas or water connections don't change much or often. Telecommunications is exactly the opposite. Just go back less than 30 years, hell ten. People were using modems and their copper phone lines less than a couple decade ago. Then it was coaxial cable. Now we're talking about fiber. These are completely different pipes, each of which has to be laid down in that 'last mile'. If they were already there, it would be one thing, but how does the already cash-strapped city know that it isn't building obsolescence? The water pipes into my home are almost a half century old. How long before that shiny new broadband connection is outdated? I'd bet it's less than a decade. Then they would have to dig up all the streets again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting .
So the infrastructure for net connection becomes something like the water or gas pipe into my home .
The problem with this analogy is that gas or water connections do n't change much or often .
Telecommunications is exactly the opposite .
Just go back less than 30 years , hell ten .
People were using modems and their copper phone lines less than a couple decade ago .
Then it was coaxial cable .
Now we 're talking about fiber .
These are completely different pipes , each of which has to be laid down in that 'last mile' .
If they were already there , it would be one thing , but how does the already cash-strapped city know that it is n't building obsolescence ?
The water pipes into my home are almost a half century old .
How long before that shiny new broadband connection is outdated ?
I 'd bet it 's less than a decade .
Then they would have to dig up all the streets again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting.
So the infrastructure for net connection becomes something like the water or gas pipe into my home.
The problem with this analogy is that gas or water connections don't change much or often.
Telecommunications is exactly the opposite.
Just go back less than 30 years, hell ten.
People were using modems and their copper phone lines less than a couple decade ago.
Then it was coaxial cable.
Now we're talking about fiber.
These are completely different pipes, each of which has to be laid down in that 'last mile'.
If they were already there, it would be one thing, but how does the already cash-strapped city know that it isn't building obsolescence?
The water pipes into my home are almost a half century old.
How long before that shiny new broadband connection is outdated?
I'd bet it's less than a decade.
Then they would have to dig up all the streets again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31497798</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, there's a shock!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268762100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I'm from Enron, I'm here to help!"</p><p>"I'm from the Republican Party, I'm here to help."</p><p>"I'm a libertarian, I'm here to help!"</p><p>That applies both ways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 'm from Enron , I 'm here to help !
" " I 'm from the Republican Party , I 'm here to help .
" " I 'm a libertarian , I 'm here to help !
" That applies both ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I'm from Enron, I'm here to help!
""I'm from the Republican Party, I'm here to help.
""I'm a libertarian, I'm here to help!
"That applies both ways.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31498490</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, there's a shock!</title>
	<author>Gilmoure</author>
	<datestamp>1268764920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We should get rid of government and go back to the old days. My grandfather didn't need a dozen code sign offs to build his house and it's still standing 80 years later. Just think what life would be like if there weren't all these people telling everyone what to do!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We should get rid of government and go back to the old days .
My grandfather did n't need a dozen code sign offs to build his house and it 's still standing 80 years later .
Just think what life would be like if there were n't all these people telling everyone what to do !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should get rid of government and go back to the old days.
My grandfather didn't need a dozen code sign offs to build his house and it's still standing 80 years later.
Just think what life would be like if there weren't all these people telling everyone what to do!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494024</id>
	<title>Why do poor people need broadband internet</title>
	<author>airwedge1</author>
	<datestamp>1268747880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since when is broadband internet a right, and the government has to intervene to make sure everyone has it.  That is total crap.  It's literally stealing my money, and giving it to someone else.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when is broadband internet a right , and the government has to intervene to make sure everyone has it .
That is total crap .
It 's literally stealing my money , and giving it to someone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when is broadband internet a right, and the government has to intervene to make sure everyone has it.
That is total crap.
It's literally stealing my money, and giving it to someone else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31509784</id>
	<title>I am on Dial-up and can't get broadband</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268846040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All I can get is dial-up just to download the PDF to read it will take me 1 hour +, I live in California to</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All I can get is dial-up just to download the PDF to read it will take me 1 hour + , I live in California to</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All I can get is dial-up just to download the PDF to read it will take me 1 hour +, I live in California to</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31498408</id>
	<title>Re:Governments never reduce costs</title>
	<author>magus\_melchior</author>
	<datestamp>1268764560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll be willing to bet that if Amerin starts having problems, they'll blame CWLP and/or the state/muni governments. That argument will stick if they're actually competing in the same market, even if CWLP and the government was only doing what was the most efficient use of resources.</p><p>Usually it's a matter of who is running the organization. I'll bet Amerin is run by sociopathic pricks* who care more about their own yachts than Amerin's well-being, and CWLP is run by competent (if possibly boring) managers.</p><p>The best argument against privatizing a public service or asset is usually that the private sector will abuse the fact that the public needs that service or asset. There's a reason why fire departments are not privately owned-- just as insurance companies will try anything to avoid reimbursing fire insurance claims, a private fire department will avoid providing their services to those who don't (or can't) pay for them. Unfortunately, with state and municipal governments running out of funds and unable to deficit-spend, they may opt to sell these services/assets to the highest bidder with disastrous results; we're already seeing this in juvenile detention, which has seen a remarkable increase in private ownership. Smarter governments would <i>lease</i> a portion of these with the provision that if the private company fails to deliver, the lease is terminated and the government re-takes ownership. At least that would provide some deterrence from abuse.</p><p>* Of course, it's entirely possible to have a successful (as in "makes shit-tons of money") business be run by sociopathic pricks-- how else would I explain Oracle, Apple, and Microsoft? Perhaps the difference is that these jerk bosses have found ways to channel their self-centered behavior into improving their businesses?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll be willing to bet that if Amerin starts having problems , they 'll blame CWLP and/or the state/muni governments .
That argument will stick if they 're actually competing in the same market , even if CWLP and the government was only doing what was the most efficient use of resources.Usually it 's a matter of who is running the organization .
I 'll bet Amerin is run by sociopathic pricks * who care more about their own yachts than Amerin 's well-being , and CWLP is run by competent ( if possibly boring ) managers.The best argument against privatizing a public service or asset is usually that the private sector will abuse the fact that the public needs that service or asset .
There 's a reason why fire departments are not privately owned-- just as insurance companies will try anything to avoid reimbursing fire insurance claims , a private fire department will avoid providing their services to those who do n't ( or ca n't ) pay for them .
Unfortunately , with state and municipal governments running out of funds and unable to deficit-spend , they may opt to sell these services/assets to the highest bidder with disastrous results ; we 're already seeing this in juvenile detention , which has seen a remarkable increase in private ownership .
Smarter governments would lease a portion of these with the provision that if the private company fails to deliver , the lease is terminated and the government re-takes ownership .
At least that would provide some deterrence from abuse .
* Of course , it 's entirely possible to have a successful ( as in " makes shit-tons of money " ) business be run by sociopathic pricks-- how else would I explain Oracle , Apple , and Microsoft ?
Perhaps the difference is that these jerk bosses have found ways to channel their self-centered behavior into improving their businesses ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll be willing to bet that if Amerin starts having problems, they'll blame CWLP and/or the state/muni governments.
That argument will stick if they're actually competing in the same market, even if CWLP and the government was only doing what was the most efficient use of resources.Usually it's a matter of who is running the organization.
I'll bet Amerin is run by sociopathic pricks* who care more about their own yachts than Amerin's well-being, and CWLP is run by competent (if possibly boring) managers.The best argument against privatizing a public service or asset is usually that the private sector will abuse the fact that the public needs that service or asset.
There's a reason why fire departments are not privately owned-- just as insurance companies will try anything to avoid reimbursing fire insurance claims, a private fire department will avoid providing their services to those who don't (or can't) pay for them.
Unfortunately, with state and municipal governments running out of funds and unable to deficit-spend, they may opt to sell these services/assets to the highest bidder with disastrous results; we're already seeing this in juvenile detention, which has seen a remarkable increase in private ownership.
Smarter governments would lease a portion of these with the provision that if the private company fails to deliver, the lease is terminated and the government re-takes ownership.
At least that would provide some deterrence from abuse.
* Of course, it's entirely possible to have a successful (as in "makes shit-tons of money") business be run by sociopathic pricks-- how else would I explain Oracle, Apple, and Microsoft?
Perhaps the difference is that these jerk bosses have found ways to channel their self-centered behavior into improving their businesses?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494486</id>
	<title>Re:What about the backbones and the servers?</title>
	<author>GaryOlson</author>
	<datestamp>1268750280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The same argument was used when the US Interstate highway system was built decades ago. We already had highways linking the various major cities; why do we need these big limited access highways? Decades ago when the first bypass Interstate highways were built in the middle of open county around metro areas the discussions were equally argumentative -- who would ever need such a highway? Who would provide services for travelers on these roads?<br> <br>Decades may be required before the average person needs 100Mbps. And some of the original architecture and 100Mbps equipment will fail to meet future needs <i>[ analogy attempt: compare a cloverleaf intersection in Ohio with the newly built High Five intersection in Dallas]</i> <br> <br>One of the functions of government is to provide very long term goals and infrastructure measured in decades which private industry cannot meet -- and which most people cannot comprehend.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The same argument was used when the US Interstate highway system was built decades ago .
We already had highways linking the various major cities ; why do we need these big limited access highways ?
Decades ago when the first bypass Interstate highways were built in the middle of open county around metro areas the discussions were equally argumentative -- who would ever need such a highway ?
Who would provide services for travelers on these roads ?
Decades may be required before the average person needs 100Mbps .
And some of the original architecture and 100Mbps equipment will fail to meet future needs [ analogy attempt : compare a cloverleaf intersection in Ohio with the newly built High Five intersection in Dallas ] One of the functions of government is to provide very long term goals and infrastructure measured in decades which private industry can not meet -- and which most people can not comprehend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same argument was used when the US Interstate highway system was built decades ago.
We already had highways linking the various major cities; why do we need these big limited access highways?
Decades ago when the first bypass Interstate highways were built in the middle of open county around metro areas the discussions were equally argumentative -- who would ever need such a highway?
Who would provide services for travelers on these roads?
Decades may be required before the average person needs 100Mbps.
And some of the original architecture and 100Mbps equipment will fail to meet future needs [ analogy attempt: compare a cloverleaf intersection in Ohio with the newly built High Five intersection in Dallas]  One of the functions of government is to provide very long term goals and infrastructure measured in decades which private industry cannot meet -- and which most people cannot comprehend.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31499234</id>
	<title>Re:Governments never reduce costs</title>
	<author>gad\_zuki!</author>
	<datestamp>1268767680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, working meters, credit card payment, not out begging for quarters or getting a 100 dollar ticket because you dont have an antiquated little disk on you? What a fiasco!</p><p>Heck, I pulled into one that was broken recently.  I called the number. It was answered within a couple of rings and I talked to someone who actually spoke english and had customer service skills!</p><p>Im not some "privatize everything" loon but the Chicago parking meters are much better than the union no-work pension-sucking fatcat gangster system run by the city previously. All politics are local. In some towns public parking meters works out, in others, it doesnt. It happens that in Chicago, the city had parking meters on a very low priority.  Instead of the city providing hundreds of no-work overpaid jobs, a private company is doing it.  If they screw up we can go back to public.  I dont mind paying extra for working machines and using a credit card.</p><p>Its not healthcare, its just meters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , working meters , credit card payment , not out begging for quarters or getting a 100 dollar ticket because you dont have an antiquated little disk on you ?
What a fiasco ! Heck , I pulled into one that was broken recently .
I called the number .
It was answered within a couple of rings and I talked to someone who actually spoke english and had customer service skills ! Im not some " privatize everything " loon but the Chicago parking meters are much better than the union no-work pension-sucking fatcat gangster system run by the city previously .
All politics are local .
In some towns public parking meters works out , in others , it doesnt .
It happens that in Chicago , the city had parking meters on a very low priority .
Instead of the city providing hundreds of no-work overpaid jobs , a private company is doing it .
If they screw up we can go back to public .
I dont mind paying extra for working machines and using a credit card.Its not healthcare , its just meters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, working meters, credit card payment, not out begging for quarters or getting a 100 dollar ticket because you dont have an antiquated little disk on you?
What a fiasco!Heck, I pulled into one that was broken recently.
I called the number.
It was answered within a couple of rings and I talked to someone who actually spoke english and had customer service skills!Im not some "privatize everything" loon but the Chicago parking meters are much better than the union no-work pension-sucking fatcat gangster system run by the city previously.
All politics are local.
In some towns public parking meters works out, in others, it doesnt.
It happens that in Chicago, the city had parking meters on a very low priority.
Instead of the city providing hundreds of no-work overpaid jobs, a private company is doing it.
If they screw up we can go back to public.
I dont mind paying extra for working machines and using a credit card.Its not healthcare, its just meters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495612</id>
	<title>Re:Governments never reduce costs</title>
	<author>zorro-z</author>
	<datestamp>1268754420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A few counterpoints which are of particular relevance in the US today:</p><p>1) Medicare is implemented w/a rough overhead of 3\%, as compared to 20-30\% overhead for private insurers. In other words, the government does medical insurance at a lower cost than private business.</p><p>2) The private contractors to whom the Bush administration handed work in Iraq did the job for a much higher cost per-pseudo soldier than the US Military would have done. In other words, the government does war cheaper than private business.</p><p>Yes, private industry is probably more aggressive about cutting costs than the government. But that's b/c they have a vested purpose to do so: the profit motive. Every dollar spent on actual health care, or a soldier, or on providing high speed Internet access, is one less dollar in the owners' pockets. Hence, all costs- or corners- shall be cut to maximize profits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A few counterpoints which are of particular relevance in the US today : 1 ) Medicare is implemented w/a rough overhead of 3 \ % , as compared to 20-30 \ % overhead for private insurers .
In other words , the government does medical insurance at a lower cost than private business.2 ) The private contractors to whom the Bush administration handed work in Iraq did the job for a much higher cost per-pseudo soldier than the US Military would have done .
In other words , the government does war cheaper than private business.Yes , private industry is probably more aggressive about cutting costs than the government .
But that 's b/c they have a vested purpose to do so : the profit motive .
Every dollar spent on actual health care , or a soldier , or on providing high speed Internet access , is one less dollar in the owners ' pockets .
Hence , all costs- or corners- shall be cut to maximize profits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A few counterpoints which are of particular relevance in the US today:1) Medicare is implemented w/a rough overhead of 3\%, as compared to 20-30\% overhead for private insurers.
In other words, the government does medical insurance at a lower cost than private business.2) The private contractors to whom the Bush administration handed work in Iraq did the job for a much higher cost per-pseudo soldier than the US Military would have done.
In other words, the government does war cheaper than private business.Yes, private industry is probably more aggressive about cutting costs than the government.
But that's b/c they have a vested purpose to do so: the profit motive.
Every dollar spent on actual health care, or a soldier, or on providing high speed Internet access, is one less dollar in the owners' pockets.
Hence, all costs- or corners- shall be cut to maximize profits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493918</id>
	<title>Re:Socialist internetz</title>
	<author>WrongSizeGlass</author>
	<datestamp>1268747220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why spend so much money hooking up rednecks and bible thumpers?</p><p>It won't improve their lives one bit, and will just add more retards to the internuts causing retardedness to overflow, which will destroy the world, and probably the solar system.</p></div><p>Blast the outlying areas with our strongest wireless signals (WiFi, WiMax, cellular, etc, etc) and let them each buy the wireless receiver of their choice. It's cheaper to send a wireless signal farther out into these more remote areas than it is a land line.  <br> <br>
Let technology and information rain down upon them from the skies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why spend so much money hooking up rednecks and bible thumpers ? It wo n't improve their lives one bit , and will just add more retards to the internuts causing retardedness to overflow , which will destroy the world , and probably the solar system.Blast the outlying areas with our strongest wireless signals ( WiFi , WiMax , cellular , etc , etc ) and let them each buy the wireless receiver of their choice .
It 's cheaper to send a wireless signal farther out into these more remote areas than it is a land line .
Let technology and information rain down upon them from the skies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why spend so much money hooking up rednecks and bible thumpers?It won't improve their lives one bit, and will just add more retards to the internuts causing retardedness to overflow, which will destroy the world, and probably the solar system.Blast the outlying areas with our strongest wireless signals (WiFi, WiMax, cellular, etc, etc) and let them each buy the wireless receiver of their choice.
It's cheaper to send a wireless signal farther out into these more remote areas than it is a land line.
Let technology and information rain down upon them from the skies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495320</id>
	<title>Re:Trolling? Good lord.</title>
	<author>conureman</author>
	<datestamp>1268753280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the thing I like most about Slashdot is the quality of our trolls. When a troll who belongs at one of the other sites shows up, they tend to get bored and go away in a few weeks. Our worst element seems to be poor moderators, but that's a democratic compromise similar to RL. I use the under/over- mods a fair amount, (unless someone's karma needs a hit, but I might research that first) and was of the impression that it was useful throughout the range, as logged-in users can set their browsing to taste. Some times when I'm posting something trollish, I remember to drop the karma bonus, to conserve someone's points.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the thing I like most about Slashdot is the quality of our trolls .
When a troll who belongs at one of the other sites shows up , they tend to get bored and go away in a few weeks .
Our worst element seems to be poor moderators , but that 's a democratic compromise similar to RL .
I use the under/over- mods a fair amount , ( unless someone 's karma needs a hit , but I might research that first ) and was of the impression that it was useful throughout the range , as logged-in users can set their browsing to taste .
Some times when I 'm posting something trollish , I remember to drop the karma bonus , to conserve someone 's points .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the thing I like most about Slashdot is the quality of our trolls.
When a troll who belongs at one of the other sites shows up, they tend to get bored and go away in a few weeks.
Our worst element seems to be poor moderators, but that's a democratic compromise similar to RL.
I use the under/over- mods a fair amount, (unless someone's karma needs a hit, but I might research that first) and was of the impression that it was useful throughout the range, as logged-in users can set their browsing to taste.
Some times when I'm posting something trollish, I remember to drop the karma bonus, to conserve someone's points.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494584</id>
	<title>Other things that may cost you money</title>
	<author>hobbestcat</author>
	<datestamp>1268750820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Buying video games may cost you money<br>Eating food may cost you money<br>Having indoor plumbing may cost you money<br>Riding a bike may cost you money<br>Upgrading your video card may cost you money<br>Using toilet paper may cost you money</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Buying video games may cost you moneyEating food may cost you moneyHaving indoor plumbing may cost you moneyRiding a bike may cost you moneyUpgrading your video card may cost you moneyUsing toilet paper may cost you money</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Buying video games may cost you moneyEating food may cost you moneyHaving indoor plumbing may cost you moneyRiding a bike may cost you moneyUpgrading your video card may cost you moneyUsing toilet paper may cost you money</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31497440</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't this just a LITTLE premature?</title>
	<author>structural\_biologist</author>
	<datestamp>1268760780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree.  At the risk of sounding a bit old fashioned, why do we expect extensive analysis of the text of a bill that came out just five hours prior to this post?  Perhaps the lack of sources quoted is simply due to the fact that the article was published before any reporter could contact US government officials for a response?  Indeed, at this point I would not expect any good journalism on this topic to be published because good journalists would contact government officials for responses to criticism or answers to questions.  Maybe the poster's claim that few reporters are interested in the topic might be valid if there is not significant coverage of the issue by tonight or tomorrow.  However, expecting reporters to publish information (let alone analysis) on this issue without giving the reporters time to think deeply about the bill's text and gather responses from officials is unreasonable.  This is one of the problems facing our society today; while useful information and news does get disseminated much more quickly and widely than before (a plus), the time pressures of publishing makes this information be based much more on cursory reactions and less on thoughtful analysis.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
At the risk of sounding a bit old fashioned , why do we expect extensive analysis of the text of a bill that came out just five hours prior to this post ?
Perhaps the lack of sources quoted is simply due to the fact that the article was published before any reporter could contact US government officials for a response ?
Indeed , at this point I would not expect any good journalism on this topic to be published because good journalists would contact government officials for responses to criticism or answers to questions .
Maybe the poster 's claim that few reporters are interested in the topic might be valid if there is not significant coverage of the issue by tonight or tomorrow .
However , expecting reporters to publish information ( let alone analysis ) on this issue without giving the reporters time to think deeply about the bill 's text and gather responses from officials is unreasonable .
This is one of the problems facing our society today ; while useful information and news does get disseminated much more quickly and widely than before ( a plus ) , the time pressures of publishing makes this information be based much more on cursory reactions and less on thoughtful analysis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
At the risk of sounding a bit old fashioned, why do we expect extensive analysis of the text of a bill that came out just five hours prior to this post?
Perhaps the lack of sources quoted is simply due to the fact that the article was published before any reporter could contact US government officials for a response?
Indeed, at this point I would not expect any good journalism on this topic to be published because good journalists would contact government officials for responses to criticism or answers to questions.
Maybe the poster's claim that few reporters are interested in the topic might be valid if there is not significant coverage of the issue by tonight or tomorrow.
However, expecting reporters to publish information (let alone analysis) on this issue without giving the reporters time to think deeply about the bill's text and gather responses from officials is unreasonable.
This is one of the problems facing our society today; while useful information and news does get disseminated much more quickly and widely than before (a plus), the time pressures of publishing makes this information be based much more on cursory reactions and less on thoughtful analysis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31497632</id>
	<title>Why do ALL people need ANYTHING?</title>
	<author>fnj</author>
	<datestamp>1268761500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why do poor people need broadband internet: Since when is broadband internet a right, and the government has to intervene to make sure everyone has it. That is total crap. It's literally stealing my money, and giving it to someone else.</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm going to assume your post is not pure sarcasm, and is merely a true expression of extreme libertarianism.  Its not genuine conservatism, if that's what you think it is.  If this is a mistake, sorry, but it was the poorest attempt at sarcasm I have ever seen.</p><p>First, get over the "right" hangup.  The debate should be framed in terms of whether it should be an entitlement.  And knock off the dismissive term "poor people."</p><p>Discounting any argument based on social contract, please consider that it is in the interest of anyone who wants wiser, more enlightened, more efficient, and more effective government to have voters who are well informed and able to readily interact in the true, cross section of society, commons -- for which the internet is ideally suited.  Anything that effectively acts against the establishment and perpetuation of a turned-off, resentful, disadvantaged underclass is good for everyone.  And, sheesh, the per capita expense involved is so small.  You had better worry instead about burgeoning, crippling health care expense and national indebtedness on an insane, unsustainable level, which can only lead to a future of unimaginable inflation and poverty.</p><p>If you really want a worthwhile debate, think about whether the Great Society and the War on Poverty has led to an improved situation with respect to the social underclass, or a hopeless perpetuation of same.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do poor people need broadband internet : Since when is broadband internet a right , and the government has to intervene to make sure everyone has it .
That is total crap .
It 's literally stealing my money , and giving it to someone else.I 'm going to assume your post is not pure sarcasm , and is merely a true expression of extreme libertarianism .
Its not genuine conservatism , if that 's what you think it is .
If this is a mistake , sorry , but it was the poorest attempt at sarcasm I have ever seen.First , get over the " right " hangup .
The debate should be framed in terms of whether it should be an entitlement .
And knock off the dismissive term " poor people .
" Discounting any argument based on social contract , please consider that it is in the interest of anyone who wants wiser , more enlightened , more efficient , and more effective government to have voters who are well informed and able to readily interact in the true , cross section of society , commons -- for which the internet is ideally suited .
Anything that effectively acts against the establishment and perpetuation of a turned-off , resentful , disadvantaged underclass is good for everyone .
And , sheesh , the per capita expense involved is so small .
You had better worry instead about burgeoning , crippling health care expense and national indebtedness on an insane , unsustainable level , which can only lead to a future of unimaginable inflation and poverty.If you really want a worthwhile debate , think about whether the Great Society and the War on Poverty has led to an improved situation with respect to the social underclass , or a hopeless perpetuation of same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do poor people need broadband internet: Since when is broadband internet a right, and the government has to intervene to make sure everyone has it.
That is total crap.
It's literally stealing my money, and giving it to someone else.I'm going to assume your post is not pure sarcasm, and is merely a true expression of extreme libertarianism.
Its not genuine conservatism, if that's what you think it is.
If this is a mistake, sorry, but it was the poorest attempt at sarcasm I have ever seen.First, get over the "right" hangup.
The debate should be framed in terms of whether it should be an entitlement.
And knock off the dismissive term "poor people.
"Discounting any argument based on social contract, please consider that it is in the interest of anyone who wants wiser, more enlightened, more efficient, and more effective government to have voters who are well informed and able to readily interact in the true, cross section of society, commons -- for which the internet is ideally suited.
Anything that effectively acts against the establishment and perpetuation of a turned-off, resentful, disadvantaged underclass is good for everyone.
And, sheesh, the per capita expense involved is so small.
You had better worry instead about burgeoning, crippling health care expense and national indebtedness on an insane, unsustainable level, which can only lead to a future of unimaginable inflation and poverty.If you really want a worthwhile debate, think about whether the Great Society and the War on Poverty has led to an improved situation with respect to the social underclass, or a hopeless perpetuation of same.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31500836</id>
	<title>Re:Governments never reduce costs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268731320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've got an even better example.  I'm on the other side of the Mississippi from you, where we have a mix of Ameren and a co-op called Cuivre River.  The same circumstances apply: Ameren service is poor, unreliable, and expensive in comparison.  When I lived in an apartment, I had Ameren service.  When I moved to a house, I moved into the Cuivre River Electric Cooperative service area.  Over here, we had the winter ice storms rip down lines all over the place.... in the Ameren service area.  I never lost power, during or after that ice storm.  Meanwhile it took Ameren a month to put their lines back up.</p><p>The advantage I have over CWLP is I'm an owner of my electric company.  It's a coop.  Every user of the service is automatically an owning member, and we get to vote once a year on the board members that do the actual week to week management.  So if the local government hits a rough patch, they can't raid my coop's operating funds, and they can't sell my coop to Ameren.  It's also a good deal harder for interfering state and federal governments to pressure them.  All they do is electricity, so it's not possible to hold them hostage by threatening their road improvement budget.  I like that a LOT better.  The coop DOESN'T turn a profit.  It's a non-profit organization.  They maintain, by charter, a rolling pool of operating funds.  When those funds exceed thresholds set by the charter, I get a check in the mail, paying back the excess.</p><p>Of course, it only works as well as it does because we seem to do a pretty good job of picking board members.  They're honest, they're earnest, and they're effective.  I like to think the charter is rigged to encourage this state of affairs, because only a fraction of the board is elected each year, maintaining continuity and a certain amount of built-in safeguards against a poor choice, but I'd imagine the whole thing could come crashing down if we somehow got fooled by a succession of sociopathic assholes.  Fortunately the fact the coop is non-profit tends to keep the sociopaths away - there's nothing in it for them.</p><p>Posting anonymously because I've already moderated and because I've said much the same before in other threads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got an even better example .
I 'm on the other side of the Mississippi from you , where we have a mix of Ameren and a co-op called Cuivre River .
The same circumstances apply : Ameren service is poor , unreliable , and expensive in comparison .
When I lived in an apartment , I had Ameren service .
When I moved to a house , I moved into the Cuivre River Electric Cooperative service area .
Over here , we had the winter ice storms rip down lines all over the place.... in the Ameren service area .
I never lost power , during or after that ice storm .
Meanwhile it took Ameren a month to put their lines back up.The advantage I have over CWLP is I 'm an owner of my electric company .
It 's a coop .
Every user of the service is automatically an owning member , and we get to vote once a year on the board members that do the actual week to week management .
So if the local government hits a rough patch , they ca n't raid my coop 's operating funds , and they ca n't sell my coop to Ameren .
It 's also a good deal harder for interfering state and federal governments to pressure them .
All they do is electricity , so it 's not possible to hold them hostage by threatening their road improvement budget .
I like that a LOT better .
The coop DOES N'T turn a profit .
It 's a non-profit organization .
They maintain , by charter , a rolling pool of operating funds .
When those funds exceed thresholds set by the charter , I get a check in the mail , paying back the excess.Of course , it only works as well as it does because we seem to do a pretty good job of picking board members .
They 're honest , they 're earnest , and they 're effective .
I like to think the charter is rigged to encourage this state of affairs , because only a fraction of the board is elected each year , maintaining continuity and a certain amount of built-in safeguards against a poor choice , but I 'd imagine the whole thing could come crashing down if we somehow got fooled by a succession of sociopathic assholes .
Fortunately the fact the coop is non-profit tends to keep the sociopaths away - there 's nothing in it for them.Posting anonymously because I 've already moderated and because I 've said much the same before in other threads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got an even better example.
I'm on the other side of the Mississippi from you, where we have a mix of Ameren and a co-op called Cuivre River.
The same circumstances apply: Ameren service is poor, unreliable, and expensive in comparison.
When I lived in an apartment, I had Ameren service.
When I moved to a house, I moved into the Cuivre River Electric Cooperative service area.
Over here, we had the winter ice storms rip down lines all over the place.... in the Ameren service area.
I never lost power, during or after that ice storm.
Meanwhile it took Ameren a month to put their lines back up.The advantage I have over CWLP is I'm an owner of my electric company.
It's a coop.
Every user of the service is automatically an owning member, and we get to vote once a year on the board members that do the actual week to week management.
So if the local government hits a rough patch, they can't raid my coop's operating funds, and they can't sell my coop to Ameren.
It's also a good deal harder for interfering state and federal governments to pressure them.
All they do is electricity, so it's not possible to hold them hostage by threatening their road improvement budget.
I like that a LOT better.
The coop DOESN'T turn a profit.
It's a non-profit organization.
They maintain, by charter, a rolling pool of operating funds.
When those funds exceed thresholds set by the charter, I get a check in the mail, paying back the excess.Of course, it only works as well as it does because we seem to do a pretty good job of picking board members.
They're honest, they're earnest, and they're effective.
I like to think the charter is rigged to encourage this state of affairs, because only a fraction of the board is elected each year, maintaining continuity and a certain amount of built-in safeguards against a poor choice, but I'd imagine the whole thing could come crashing down if we somehow got fooled by a succession of sociopathic assholes.
Fortunately the fact the coop is non-profit tends to keep the sociopaths away - there's nothing in it for them.Posting anonymously because I've already moderated and because I've said much the same before in other threads.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494330</id>
	<title>Re:What about the backbones and the servers?</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1268749440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What's so special about 100Mbps?</p></div><p>Its "a couple TVs worth of Hi Def video" aka competition for the cable providers.</p><p>Its a nice simple power of ten of a number.  You can get into long tedious arguments about specially recoding feeds into H.264 at this parameter and that parameter blah blah.  However, 10 Mbps is pretty borderline, and 1G is way the heck more than necessary, the convenient power of 10 in the middle happens to be 100 Mbps.</p><p>Also the folks involved are all slow moving dinosaurs.  You know that bit about hit the brontosaurus tail and it takes 5 seconds for the slow nerve response to go to the brain, or whatever it was we were taught as kids?  Well, when these clowns got started fast ethernet was widespread and gig-E was too new to bother considering.  So with the home computing infrastructure we had, it seemed pointless to request anything above 100M.  Much like it would be silly to daydream of requesting 100-Gig for home use at this instant, since there is no 100-Gig gear marketed for home use (made in china for $5, sold at best buy and walmart for $50, drool proof configuration, zero maintenance, etc)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's so special about 100Mbps ? Its " a couple TVs worth of Hi Def video " aka competition for the cable providers.Its a nice simple power of ten of a number .
You can get into long tedious arguments about specially recoding feeds into H.264 at this parameter and that parameter blah blah .
However , 10 Mbps is pretty borderline , and 1G is way the heck more than necessary , the convenient power of 10 in the middle happens to be 100 Mbps.Also the folks involved are all slow moving dinosaurs .
You know that bit about hit the brontosaurus tail and it takes 5 seconds for the slow nerve response to go to the brain , or whatever it was we were taught as kids ?
Well , when these clowns got started fast ethernet was widespread and gig-E was too new to bother considering .
So with the home computing infrastructure we had , it seemed pointless to request anything above 100M .
Much like it would be silly to daydream of requesting 100-Gig for home use at this instant , since there is no 100-Gig gear marketed for home use ( made in china for $ 5 , sold at best buy and walmart for $ 50 , drool proof configuration , zero maintenance , etc )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's so special about 100Mbps?Its "a couple TVs worth of Hi Def video" aka competition for the cable providers.Its a nice simple power of ten of a number.
You can get into long tedious arguments about specially recoding feeds into H.264 at this parameter and that parameter blah blah.
However, 10 Mbps is pretty borderline, and 1G is way the heck more than necessary, the convenient power of 10 in the middle happens to be 100 Mbps.Also the folks involved are all slow moving dinosaurs.
You know that bit about hit the brontosaurus tail and it takes 5 seconds for the slow nerve response to go to the brain, or whatever it was we were taught as kids?
Well, when these clowns got started fast ethernet was widespread and gig-E was too new to bother considering.
So with the home computing infrastructure we had, it seemed pointless to request anything above 100M.
Much like it would be silly to daydream of requesting 100-Gig for home use at this instant, since there is no 100-Gig gear marketed for home use (made in china for $5, sold at best buy and walmart for $50, drool proof configuration, zero maintenance, etc)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494560</id>
	<title>Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268750640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do believe access to the internet is a right, same as you have the right move and buy pretty much what you choose. Transportation and goods cost money, however, so I don't know where you got the notion that everyone should get free broadband.</p><p>Why is it a right, then? Because nobody should be able to bar you from using the internet for your everyday stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do believe access to the internet is a right , same as you have the right move and buy pretty much what you choose .
Transportation and goods cost money , however , so I do n't know where you got the notion that everyone should get free broadband.Why is it a right , then ?
Because nobody should be able to bar you from using the internet for your everyday stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do believe access to the internet is a right, same as you have the right move and buy pretty much what you choose.
Transportation and goods cost money, however, so I don't know where you got the notion that everyone should get free broadband.Why is it a right, then?
Because nobody should be able to bar you from using the internet for your everyday stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494742</id>
	<title>Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME</title>
	<author>flitty</author>
	<datestamp>1268751360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Broadband as a right" should be as much a right as guns are.  If you want to buy a connection to the internet, you should be able to get one.  If the government needs a $5 subsidy from all people connected to the internet to pay for such a right, it's about time.  The internet is becoming such a backbone to society that we should view it like electricity or water or sewage.<br> <br>
Also, this isn't a "state run" plan.  It's paying a tax to subsidize corporations to provide the service, much like landline phone companies are forced to provide cheap phone connections to those who can't pay.
<br>
<a href="http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/lllu.html" title="fcc.gov">http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/lllu.html</a> [fcc.gov]</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Broadband as a right " should be as much a right as guns are .
If you want to buy a connection to the internet , you should be able to get one .
If the government needs a $ 5 subsidy from all people connected to the internet to pay for such a right , it 's about time .
The internet is becoming such a backbone to society that we should view it like electricity or water or sewage .
Also , this is n't a " state run " plan .
It 's paying a tax to subsidize corporations to provide the service , much like landline phone companies are forced to provide cheap phone connections to those who ca n't pay .
http : //www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/lllu.html [ fcc.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Broadband as a right" should be as much a right as guns are.
If you want to buy a connection to the internet, you should be able to get one.
If the government needs a $5 subsidy from all people connected to the internet to pay for such a right, it's about time.
The internet is becoming such a backbone to society that we should view it like electricity or water or sewage.
Also, this isn't a "state run" plan.
It's paying a tax to subsidize corporations to provide the service, much like landline phone companies are forced to provide cheap phone connections to those who can't pay.
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/lllu.html [fcc.gov]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493962</id>
	<title>Re:Government Services</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268747460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not everybody.  I don't want public schools or medicare.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not everybody .
I do n't want public schools or medicare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not everybody.
I don't want public schools or medicare.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494806</id>
	<title>Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1268751480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;Broadband is not a free market by any means so its pointless to pretend that it is.</p><p>No it isn't but that could be easily fixed by allowing other companies access to the government-owned metal pipes under the street.  Why should Comcast and Verizon be the only ones to run lines???  I say let other companies such as Cox, Cablevision, ATT, AppleTV, and so on run lines also.</p><p>Then each customer will have a choice of ~10 companies and there will be true competition instead of duopoly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; Broadband is not a free market by any means so its pointless to pretend that it is.No it is n't but that could be easily fixed by allowing other companies access to the government-owned metal pipes under the street .
Why should Comcast and Verizon be the only ones to run lines ? ? ?
I say let other companies such as Cox , Cablevision , ATT , AppleTV , and so on run lines also.Then each customer will have a choice of ~ 10 companies and there will be true competition instead of duopoly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;Broadband is not a free market by any means so its pointless to pretend that it is.No it isn't but that could be easily fixed by allowing other companies access to the government-owned metal pipes under the street.
Why should Comcast and Verizon be the only ones to run lines???
I say let other companies such as Cox, Cablevision, ATT, AppleTV, and so on run lines also.Then each customer will have a choice of ~10 companies and there will be true competition instead of duopoly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493786</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, there's a shock!</title>
	<author>dammy</author>
	<datestamp>1268746080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In aviation, it's a well document phrase of, "I'm hear from the FAA, I'm hear to help" that send shivers down A&amp;Ps and pilots spines alike.  Tax and spend is not just a phrase in Washington, it's a way to grow one's empire.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In aviation , it 's a well document phrase of , " I 'm hear from the FAA , I 'm hear to help " that send shivers down A&amp;Ps and pilots spines alike .
Tax and spend is not just a phrase in Washington , it 's a way to grow one 's empire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In aviation, it's a well document phrase of, "I'm hear from the FAA, I'm hear to help" that send shivers down A&amp;Ps and pilots spines alike.
Tax and spend is not just a phrase in Washington, it's a way to grow one's empire.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495928</id>
	<title>Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME</title>
	<author>trurl7</author>
	<datestamp>1268755440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Rights" as well as "fees" are both fiction - they are artificial human constructs.   The issue of the impossibility of having "rights" for something you consider a service is very much open to debate.  You have the "right" to travel on highways - which are arguably a service.  In some instances there is a fee, e.g. toll roads, and for all of them there was an initial construction cost that society bore.  So there you go - a right that is not free.</p><p>Are you also going to punch the next person that says that healthcare is a right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Rights " as well as " fees " are both fiction - they are artificial human constructs .
The issue of the impossibility of having " rights " for something you consider a service is very much open to debate .
You have the " right " to travel on highways - which are arguably a service .
In some instances there is a fee , e.g .
toll roads , and for all of them there was an initial construction cost that society bore .
So there you go - a right that is not free.Are you also going to punch the next person that says that healthcare is a right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Rights" as well as "fees" are both fiction - they are artificial human constructs.
The issue of the impossibility of having "rights" for something you consider a service is very much open to debate.
You have the "right" to travel on highways - which are arguably a service.
In some instances there is a fee, e.g.
toll roads, and for all of them there was an initial construction cost that society bore.
So there you go - a right that is not free.Are you also going to punch the next person that says that healthcare is a right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31497042</id>
	<title>Re:Governments never reduce costs</title>
	<author>Cytotoxic</author>
	<datestamp>1268759400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Counter example - Lake Worth Florida - all utilities are city owned.  My sister-in-law lives there and has the worst service and prices in the region.  I can't say I've been overly impressed with FPL (although they manage disasters that make your scary tornado look piddly), but my experience with Duke power was pretty good, and I was with a small CO-OP in Georgia that was fine.  Maybe your anecdotal evidence is just that.... anecdotal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Counter example - Lake Worth Florida - all utilities are city owned .
My sister-in-law lives there and has the worst service and prices in the region .
I ca n't say I 've been overly impressed with FPL ( although they manage disasters that make your scary tornado look piddly ) , but my experience with Duke power was pretty good , and I was with a small CO-OP in Georgia that was fine .
Maybe your anecdotal evidence is just that.... anecdotal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Counter example - Lake Worth Florida - all utilities are city owned.
My sister-in-law lives there and has the worst service and prices in the region.
I can't say I've been overly impressed with FPL (although they manage disasters that make your scary tornado look piddly), but my experience with Duke power was pretty good, and I was with a small CO-OP in Georgia that was fine.
Maybe your anecdotal evidence is just that.... anecdotal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494428</id>
	<title>Re:Government Services</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1268750040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What kind of Communist paradise do these people live in where Government doesn't cost anything?</p></div><p>California. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California\_Proposition\_13\_(1978)" title="wikipedia.org">Prop 13</a> [wikipedia.org] and St Reagan say so.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What kind of Communist paradise do these people live in where Government does n't cost anything ? California .
Prop 13 [ wikipedia.org ] and St Reagan say so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What kind of Communist paradise do these people live in where Government doesn't cost anything?California.
Prop 13 [wikipedia.org] and St Reagan say so.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31498214</id>
	<title>Re:Governments never reduce costs</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1268763840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"We're the electric company. We don't HAVE to." Amerin is only beholden to its stockholders, since their customers have no other choice for electricity. OTOH if CWLP's service is bad, the Mayor loses his job; the customers/citizens own CWKP.</i> <br> <br>In the latter case the "stockholders" and the "customers" are mainly the same people. It's also likely to be rather easier to contact the Mayor than Amerin's CEO.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" We 're the electric company .
We do n't HAVE to .
" Amerin is only beholden to its stockholders , since their customers have no other choice for electricity .
OTOH if CWLP 's service is bad , the Mayor loses his job ; the customers/citizens own CWKP .
In the latter case the " stockholders " and the " customers " are mainly the same people .
It 's also likely to be rather easier to contact the Mayor than Amerin 's CEO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We're the electric company.
We don't HAVE to.
" Amerin is only beholden to its stockholders, since their customers have no other choice for electricity.
OTOH if CWLP's service is bad, the Mayor loses his job; the customers/citizens own CWKP.
In the latter case the "stockholders" and the "customers" are mainly the same people.
It's also likely to be rather easier to contact the Mayor than Amerin's CEO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31496738</id>
	<title>Re:Socialist internetz</title>
	<author>Steauengeglase</author>
	<datestamp>1268758440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I get the sarcasm in this, I seem to hear a lot of similar comments when the topic comes up. The truth of it is that the people who resent the idea of Billy-Joe-Bob getting broadband are completely ignoring the fact that giving it to him will drive other costs down and in the end save them money. Say Billy-Joe-Bob Shitkicker buys himself a new fishing rod. Before he would have driven to Wal-Mart and about 9 other stores to compare price (before going back to Wal-Mart). Now multiple Billy-Joe-Bob by several thousand. Imagine the savings on road wear alone if he just ordered it off on Amazon. Also Billy-Joe-Bob want to get a psychology degree. He drives 40 miles twice every day for years on end. Now multiply that by several thousand. Just imagine the savings in child care, auto insurance/repairs and road repair.</p><p>Cosmopolitans love to go on about how their way of life is better. About how they only walk down the street for their coffee and bread and they take the train to work and their entertainment has a greater breadth than wasteful Billy-Joe-Bob Shitkicker's muliplex dive, but they are the first ones to complain about a solution brings his way of life closer to theirs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I get the sarcasm in this , I seem to hear a lot of similar comments when the topic comes up .
The truth of it is that the people who resent the idea of Billy-Joe-Bob getting broadband are completely ignoring the fact that giving it to him will drive other costs down and in the end save them money .
Say Billy-Joe-Bob Shitkicker buys himself a new fishing rod .
Before he would have driven to Wal-Mart and about 9 other stores to compare price ( before going back to Wal-Mart ) .
Now multiple Billy-Joe-Bob by several thousand .
Imagine the savings on road wear alone if he just ordered it off on Amazon .
Also Billy-Joe-Bob want to get a psychology degree .
He drives 40 miles twice every day for years on end .
Now multiply that by several thousand .
Just imagine the savings in child care , auto insurance/repairs and road repair.Cosmopolitans love to go on about how their way of life is better .
About how they only walk down the street for their coffee and bread and they take the train to work and their entertainment has a greater breadth than wasteful Billy-Joe-Bob Shitkicker 's muliplex dive , but they are the first ones to complain about a solution brings his way of life closer to theirs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I get the sarcasm in this, I seem to hear a lot of similar comments when the topic comes up.
The truth of it is that the people who resent the idea of Billy-Joe-Bob getting broadband are completely ignoring the fact that giving it to him will drive other costs down and in the end save them money.
Say Billy-Joe-Bob Shitkicker buys himself a new fishing rod.
Before he would have driven to Wal-Mart and about 9 other stores to compare price (before going back to Wal-Mart).
Now multiple Billy-Joe-Bob by several thousand.
Imagine the savings on road wear alone if he just ordered it off on Amazon.
Also Billy-Joe-Bob want to get a psychology degree.
He drives 40 miles twice every day for years on end.
Now multiply that by several thousand.
Just imagine the savings in child care, auto insurance/repairs and road repair.Cosmopolitans love to go on about how their way of life is better.
About how they only walk down the street for their coffee and bread and they take the train to work and their entertainment has a greater breadth than wasteful Billy-Joe-Bob Shitkicker's muliplex dive, but they are the first ones to complain about a solution brings his way of life closer to theirs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493888</id>
	<title>Trolling? Good lord.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268747040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've seen WAY too many posts lately marked as "Troll" when it is obviously not a Troll comment - it's either a comment that is supposed to be funny (like the above) or a comment that is a discussion continuation with an opposing point. Looking through yesterday's main stories, almost every post I saw marked as troll was wrong. For example, this parent.
<br> <br>
Troll means that the person is deliberately trying to be a jerk or derail the conversation, or is posting something off-topic and offensive. Typically before you mark the person as a Troll you want to look at their post history and see if they are a current troll, and if not you may want to consider if that person is really being a Troll or not (especially if their previous post history is quite good). If not, then consider "Flamebait", but only if it is a post that is specifically trying to fan the flames rather than make a point. Posts that are trying to make a point are neither Flamebait or Troll.
<br> <br>
For that matter, the "Overrated" moderation is used when a post is moderated way up and the content is obviously not that great or wrong. It is not used to drop a "Score:1" down to 0. When I moderate I try not to drop Score:2's to 1 as well, as most people read so anything 3 and above displays, so they still wouldn't see that post.
<br> <br>
I understand most stuff gets caught in M2 (meta-moderation for you new people), but it really screws up the conversation when you mod someone that is contributing in the wrong direction, especially to "Troll". It also makes another mod spend their points to correct you, and many mods either filter out 0's or steer clear of Troll comments and moderate good comments. Like the FAQ says, focus on the good, not the bad.
<br> <br>
So let's do our homework and use our brains before we start marking everyone as Trolls, okay?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen WAY too many posts lately marked as " Troll " when it is obviously not a Troll comment - it 's either a comment that is supposed to be funny ( like the above ) or a comment that is a discussion continuation with an opposing point .
Looking through yesterday 's main stories , almost every post I saw marked as troll was wrong .
For example , this parent .
Troll means that the person is deliberately trying to be a jerk or derail the conversation , or is posting something off-topic and offensive .
Typically before you mark the person as a Troll you want to look at their post history and see if they are a current troll , and if not you may want to consider if that person is really being a Troll or not ( especially if their previous post history is quite good ) .
If not , then consider " Flamebait " , but only if it is a post that is specifically trying to fan the flames rather than make a point .
Posts that are trying to make a point are neither Flamebait or Troll .
For that matter , the " Overrated " moderation is used when a post is moderated way up and the content is obviously not that great or wrong .
It is not used to drop a " Score : 1 " down to 0 .
When I moderate I try not to drop Score : 2 's to 1 as well , as most people read so anything 3 and above displays , so they still would n't see that post .
I understand most stuff gets caught in M2 ( meta-moderation for you new people ) , but it really screws up the conversation when you mod someone that is contributing in the wrong direction , especially to " Troll " .
It also makes another mod spend their points to correct you , and many mods either filter out 0 's or steer clear of Troll comments and moderate good comments .
Like the FAQ says , focus on the good , not the bad .
So let 's do our homework and use our brains before we start marking everyone as Trolls , okay ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen WAY too many posts lately marked as "Troll" when it is obviously not a Troll comment - it's either a comment that is supposed to be funny (like the above) or a comment that is a discussion continuation with an opposing point.
Looking through yesterday's main stories, almost every post I saw marked as troll was wrong.
For example, this parent.
Troll means that the person is deliberately trying to be a jerk or derail the conversation, or is posting something off-topic and offensive.
Typically before you mark the person as a Troll you want to look at their post history and see if they are a current troll, and if not you may want to consider if that person is really being a Troll or not (especially if their previous post history is quite good).
If not, then consider "Flamebait", but only if it is a post that is specifically trying to fan the flames rather than make a point.
Posts that are trying to make a point are neither Flamebait or Troll.
For that matter, the "Overrated" moderation is used when a post is moderated way up and the content is obviously not that great or wrong.
It is not used to drop a "Score:1" down to 0.
When I moderate I try not to drop Score:2's to 1 as well, as most people read so anything 3 and above displays, so they still wouldn't see that post.
I understand most stuff gets caught in M2 (meta-moderation for you new people), but it really screws up the conversation when you mod someone that is contributing in the wrong direction, especially to "Troll".
It also makes another mod spend their points to correct you, and many mods either filter out 0's or steer clear of Troll comments and moderate good comments.
Like the FAQ says, focus on the good, not the bad.
So let's do our homework and use our brains before we start marking everyone as Trolls, okay?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495572</id>
	<title>Re:Why do poor people need broadband internet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268754240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work from home and don't need the freeway system.  Since when is driving fast a right and the government has to intervene to make sure everyone has it.  That is total crap. It's literally stealing my money, and giving it to someone else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work from home and do n't need the freeway system .
Since when is driving fast a right and the government has to intervene to make sure everyone has it .
That is total crap .
It 's literally stealing my money , and giving it to someone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work from home and don't need the freeway system.
Since when is driving fast a right and the government has to intervene to make sure everyone has it.
That is total crap.
It's literally stealing my money, and giving it to someone else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31500900</id>
	<title>Re:Rural areas</title>
	<author>sonicmerlin</author>
	<datestamp>1268731620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Too bad what you're saying is a complete lie.  Wiring rural areas is not a financial loss, but simply a lower return on Investment.  Providing broadband is ultra cheap.  The real cost is in the initial buildout of the network.  That's the difficulty here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad what you 're saying is a complete lie .
Wiring rural areas is not a financial loss , but simply a lower return on Investment .
Providing broadband is ultra cheap .
The real cost is in the initial buildout of the network .
That 's the difficulty here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad what you're saying is a complete lie.
Wiring rural areas is not a financial loss, but simply a lower return on Investment.
Providing broadband is ultra cheap.
The real cost is in the initial buildout of the network.
That's the difficulty here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495522</id>
	<title>Re:Last Mile</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1268754000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Here's what I would do: cities and towns provide the infrastructure for the last mile. They connect fiber to homes, schools, and businesses and run it to a neighborhood hub. In rural areas, counties could build towers for 4G wireless. Then the big carriers would connect to the hubs (multiple carriers per hub for maximum competition) and charge for service.</i></p><p>Yeah, news flash:  The last mile is the most expensive-to-operate part.  It has the highest cost of initial rollout, has the greatest cost in maintenance and upgrades, etc.</p><p>In fact, I would contend that an ISP *is* the last mile.  If you're not doing that, you're just a wholesale broadband provider offering peering arrangements.  So what you're really saying is you want to do away with the private ISP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's what I would do : cities and towns provide the infrastructure for the last mile .
They connect fiber to homes , schools , and businesses and run it to a neighborhood hub .
In rural areas , counties could build towers for 4G wireless .
Then the big carriers would connect to the hubs ( multiple carriers per hub for maximum competition ) and charge for service.Yeah , news flash : The last mile is the most expensive-to-operate part .
It has the highest cost of initial rollout , has the greatest cost in maintenance and upgrades , etc.In fact , I would contend that an ISP * is * the last mile .
If you 're not doing that , you 're just a wholesale broadband provider offering peering arrangements .
So what you 're really saying is you want to do away with the private ISP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's what I would do: cities and towns provide the infrastructure for the last mile.
They connect fiber to homes, schools, and businesses and run it to a neighborhood hub.
In rural areas, counties could build towers for 4G wireless.
Then the big carriers would connect to the hubs (multiple carriers per hub for maximum competition) and charge for service.Yeah, news flash:  The last mile is the most expensive-to-operate part.
It has the highest cost of initial rollout, has the greatest cost in maintenance and upgrades, etc.In fact, I would contend that an ISP *is* the last mile.
If you're not doing that, you're just a wholesale broadband provider offering peering arrangements.
So what you're really saying is you want to do away with the private ISP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494370</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31498802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31496118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31501058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31497306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31499022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31499234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31497638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31498982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31497476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31496670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31500836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31499072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31497978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31497326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31497800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31496026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31497440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31499556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31500900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31497828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31497632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31497680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31499786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31499688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31501508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31503836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31498016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31496014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31496784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31499366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31496340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31505774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31501708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31498408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31498122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31498214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31498026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31499228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31497116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31497042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31497162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31498490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31496738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31497798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31501338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_16_1147221_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_1147221.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31496738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493778
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31499228
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_1147221.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31497632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_1147221.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494094
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_1147221.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494744
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_1147221.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31499786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31497798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493786
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31498490
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495540
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31498026
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31498802
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495468
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31499022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31498982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31499688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493768
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_1147221.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31499366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494724
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31496340
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31497800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31501508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494174
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494806
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31497476
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31497306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31497162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494304
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31497680
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494906
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494476
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495192
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31496014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31497828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494948
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_1147221.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31497638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494216
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31498016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494676
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_1147221.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31500900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31496670
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_1147221.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493942
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_1147221.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31496784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494678
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31500836
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494964
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31499234
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31497326
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31497978
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31498408
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495652
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31498214
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31497042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493888
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495124
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495320
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31496026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31499556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31505774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31499072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493904
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31503836
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_1147221.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494616
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_1147221.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31496118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31501058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495224
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_1147221.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494584
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_1147221.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31497440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31498122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494980
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_1147221.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31497116
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_16_1147221.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31493938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31501708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31495052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31501338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_16_1147221.31494018
</commentlist>
</conversation>
