Rebuttal of CNET Charge that NN special low rate is a "lie" (#3)

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.