Rebuttal of CNET Charge that NN special low rate is a "lie" (#3)
I continue to post my rebuttals to the CNET Executuve Editor Molly Woods accusations of "lies"
Rebuttal to your Point One!Posted by Scott Cleland (See profile) - July 10, 2006 9:24 AM PDT Molly
I didn't see any reply to my last comment? Did I miss it?
Or is this not a debate, but just rebuttals of your article?
I trust you are still listening. It is hard to comprehensively respond in a one inch by 4 inch comment box.
On your charge that it is a lie that the NN legislation would give a special low, government set price for the bandwidth they use. I suggest you reread Snowe Dorgan after I have decoded them for you.
Both Snowe-Dorgan and Markey bills start with "the duty of broadband providers". This legal language construct is similar to that of section 251 of the Telecom Act which is all about common carriage and the economic regulation and non-discrimination requirements of a monopoly provider.
The insidiousness of how these bills are drafted is that the only way you can ensure compliance with these hyper regulatory requirements is to regulate prices, terms and conditions. Prices terms and conditions are the benchmarks to determine if someone's traffic is being treated differently.
Since you want specifics, in Snowe-Dorgan, look specifically at Sect 12(a)(4)(c) where it says: "does not impose a charge" or section 12(a)(5) that says explicitly: "...without charge for such prioritization." This bill mandates extra service for free! I didn't lie! I was actually being kind in calling it a special low rate! This language envisions a "Socialized-Internet" where the government mandates companies give away services for FREE!
And you said I quote: "this is the biggest lie in all of this." I think I am due a retraction on this or at least an apology.
Ellipses are deceiving tools.
I'm glad to see you're quoting the specifics here, Scott - however, you're just quoting pieces that support your argument.
Why didn't you post the entirety of 12(a)(5)?
"
(12)(a) DUTY OF BROADBAND SERVICE PROVIDERS.-
With respect to any broadband service offered to the public, each broadband service provider shall -
(5) only prioritize content, applications, or services access by a user that is made available via the Internet within the network of such broadband service provider based on the type of content, applications, or services and the level of service purchased by the user, without charge for such prioritization
"
Oh! That's why. (That pesky word "only" changes the whole meaning of the sentence.) This isn't mandating giving services "for FREE!" at all. In fact, neither section mandates "extra service for free!". They state that if a provider wants to do this prioritization, that is legal - so long as it is only done on the basis of the TYPE of traffic and NO CHARGE is levied.
So whether you lied or misread it, your sensationalism is still wrong.
Snowe-Dorgan limits market forces pricing
Thank you for commenting and for including the full text. You have helped make my point that this is very unclear language. The courts would have to resolve the mess of this language which serves noone's interests.
You have also allowed me to deconstruct this language so you can better understand its practical impact.
First, lets review why legal language is used like this. What "Duty of..." and "shall" mean in this first header is the language Congress uses when is it takes away commercial freedoms and makes certain behavior illegal. It is also the specific language that gives a regulator the legal authority for their regulations. To those who are experienced in these matters, this is very heavy duty legal language, and a obvious recipe for continuous litigation.
Now lets look what the definition of what a broadband service is:
Section 12(g) (3) BROADBAND SERVICE PROVIDER -- the term "broadband service provider" means a person or entity that controls, operates, or resells and controls any facility used to provide broadband service to the public, whether provided for a fee or for free."
This is HUGELY expansive language. Why do we need to economically regulate "free" services? If you have a WiFi stick in your home you are regualated as a "person"! If this was actually "Internet light" language, why does it regulate individual American citizens broadband service for the first time?
Now lets get to what I believe is your understanding of what "only" means. That word does not change the meaning of the sentence as I read it. It does not remove or modify that this law would effectively mandate that a broadband service provider could not charge for prioritization. That's what this poorly drafted language means. Ask Senator Snowe or Dorgan if their language would allow differential pricing freedom. I believe they would reply that it is precisely thier intent that broadband providers not be able to charge different prices among a particular content class, application or service.
What this whole debate is about is that neutrality-ites want to ensure that broadband providers are not free to price their services based on market forces. They must price within the constraints of this law which is designed to have like things priced similarly.
Focus on the real world practical meaning and intent of this legislation.