It is pretty hard for someone not deeply immersed in the particular jargon of the debate to understand what Lessig is trying to communicate in his public statem

It is pretty hard for someone not deeply immersed in the particular jargon of the debate to understand what Lessig is trying to communicate in his public statements. For example, this quote from Lessig's testimony to the Senate Commerce Committee is quite ambiguous: "As I testified in 2006, in my view that minimal strategy right now marries the basic principles of “Internet Freedom” first outlined by Chairman Michael Powell, and modified more recently by the FCC, to one additional requirement — a ban on discriminatory access tiering. While broadband providers should be free, in my view, to price consumer access to the Internet differently — setting a higher price, for example, for faster or greater access — they should not be free to apply discriminatory surcharges to those who make content or applications available on the Internet. As I testified, in my view, such “access tiering” risks creating a strong incentive among Internet providers to favor some companies over others; that incentive in turn tends to support business models that exploit scarcity rather than abundance. If Google, for example, knew it could buy a kind of access for its video content that iFilm couldn’t, then it could exploit its advantage to create an even greater disadvantage for its competitors; network providers in turn could deliver on that disadvantage only if the non-privileged service was inferior to the privileged service." I understand how someone could misread that statement to support the view that Lessig is opposed to tiered content-provider access. I certainly did not get the point that Lessig wanted me to get when I first read his statement. That said, journalists should try to get these things straight.