Free Press spent a lot of words in their NPRM filing to argue that the FCC’s definition of reasonable network management practices was unreasonable. One of their kinder passages states:

The Commission’s proposed definition is circular, ambiguous, and incomplete, and without further definition will create loopholes and result in future errors in policymaking.

So what does Free Press propose to use in its place?  From a blog post on their site (ironically titled “Clear Standards for Reasonable Network Management“), they have come up with wording that is rock solid and could not possibly allow loopholes or errors:

What is the purpose of the practice, and why should we consider it valuable? In our comments, we propose that the purpose be a “public interest purpose” – something which on balance serves the public interest, not merely short-term parochial interests.

Well thank goodness!  There is no way that could possibly be interpreted two ways.  We all agree on what serves the public interest “on balance”, right?

On balance, ISPs might have thought throttling P2P traffic served the public interest purpose because it guaranteed the best possible user experience for the largest pool of users.  Clearly Free Press disagreed. The first time an ISP tried, the advocacy group complained to the FCC.  However, when it comes to opposing any action by media companies, Free Press has made a habit of advocating on behalf of a very small minority of users – often in direct contradiction to what would be “in the public interest” for the overwhelming majority.

The burden placed on the network by less than one percent of users would actually argue for such a practice if, on balance, the public interest is to be served.

Let us assume the FCC swaps Free Press’ ambiguous language for their own.  Would a network management practice that limits the behavior of one percent of its users while guaranteeing a better experience for ninety-nine percent be considered reasonable?  I would hope so.  Yet Free Press has opposed exactly that.  So whose definition of “public interest” or “on balance” are we to use?