For the supporters of the principle of network neutrality, they think it is the basic guarantee to maintain the freedom and creativity of the network. And its rivals are at & amp； Giants in telecommunications and Internet access services, such as T, Verizon and Bell. They think that as a commercial company, their interests are marginalized while building network infrastructure.
Washington post quoted John, senior vice president of Verizon, as saying that Google was enjoying a free lunch that should have been enjoyed by service providers. At&T Company. Edward, CEO of T Company, also said that Google and Yahoo are making money by using the Internet, believing that both companies and their users need to pay for Internet access services. Large telephone companies in the United States hope to change this situation by adding "toll lanes". They hope to give preferential treatment to paid data so that it can be transmitted faster, that is, to establish discriminatory network access services. Because most of these giants covet to build their own wired networks and provide content, their proposal is to establish discriminatory network access services for the better development of the network.
This so-called discriminatory access service, for example, you use Gmail, I use Yahoo, and we all use Bell's network. Because Yahoo has a contract with Bell, the former pays for it, and the latter gives priority to using Yahoo's data packets, so your Gmail performance is even better and slower than my Yahoo's, and it may even be lost when the network is crowded. In fact, AOL and Yahoo's emails began to perform similar discriminatory services in disguise by providing spam identification and priority delivery to each other. The debate about network neutrality has divided the industry into two camps. Supporters believe that the creation of so-called "fast track" will lead to "apartheid in the information field", and Internet service providers such as telecom operators and cable TV companies should treat all traffic passing through their networks equally, so that Internet service providers can treat different traffic differently, which may make large companies ban consumers and restrict their freedom. In addition, the establishment of "fast track" may also inhibit competition. The reason for the success of Internet companies such as Google and Yi Bei is that they can "compete on the same stage" with other companies, and future Internet startups may die because they don't have enough capital to enter the "fast lane" of charging.
The principle of network neutrality and the laws and regulations supporting internet neutrality are hot topics in many forums. Since the beginning of 2 1 century, supporters of the net neutrality rule have warned that broadband providers will try their best to block applications they don't like in the "last mile" and treat different content providers (such as websites, services, protocols, etc.). ) different, especially their competitors. Neutral supporters also believe that telecom companies will seek to use the bundled service model more, in order to profit from the communication channels they control, rather than meeting customers' needs for their content or services. Other supporters said that they believe that "network neutrality" is the fundamental guarantee of today's freedom.
Internet content providers and VoIP service providers support the legislation of network neutrality, and they are worried that their services may be discriminated against by network providers in the future. Thorne, president of consumer group Public Knowledge, said that FCC's broadband policy could not ensure network neutrality. Because Verizon launched its own VoIP service, it may reduce the service quality of Vonage (one of the major VoIP service providers in the United States at present), but this does not violate the FCC policy, but only harms the interests of consumers. This concept has been supported by Internet content providers such as Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Yahoo. These Internet giants are opposed to Internet providers charging extra fees, and they demand to ensure "Internet neutrality", that is, all traffic should be treated equally and no extra fees should be charged. As vint cerf, the inventor of the Internet protocol, said, "The Internet has not designed gatekeepers for new content or services. Loose but mandatory neutral rules can ensure the continued prosperity of the Internet. " Opponents of network neutrality believe that Internet service providers should be able to provide classified services, so that they and other content and application providers can provide audio and video services with quality assurance. This will not prevent any service provider from providing or any user from using audio and video services, but only means that providers who are willing to pay to ensure the quality of service can get what they want. Many industries allow consumers and providers to choose different levels of services, which has proved to be a successful business model for consumers and providers. Other countries and regions in the world have taken similar measures. For example, the UK's PlusNet provides users with three different service plans, and its subscribers and revenue have surged by 15% and 20% respectively.
At the same time, critics also believe that the network neutrality rule is "finding solutions to problems" and that the network neutrality rule will prevent broadband providers from upgrading their networks and launching the next generation network services. Other critics believe that some kinds of discrimination-especially to ensure "high-quality service"-is not a problem and is still worth looking forward to. Bob kahn, another inventor of Internet protocol, thinks that the term network neutrality is an adjustable slogan. He objected: "If the goal is to encourage people to build new capabilities, however, the leading group that builds this new capability will probably only use it in its own network, and it will probably not appear in the networks of other groups.
Broadband network providers such as large telecom and cable TV companies are opposed to writing network neutrality into law. They said they would not block websites and services, but only wanted to retain the right to charge for "fast track". Broadband access providers have invested billions of dollars to upgrade their networks. Vendors such as Verizon and their supporters say that people's concerns are purely unnecessary, and network neutrality will dampen their enthusiasm for investing in broadband networks.
In the second half of 2005, American Telecommunications Association and AT & amp； Operators such as T, Verision and Southern Bell invested more than 40 million dollars to lobby Congress in an attempt to overthrow "network neutrality". Operators require the establishment of a new generation of broadband networks, provide graded services, and have the right to charge content providers such as Google according to the service level. Internet content providers such as Microsoft and Google are tit for tat, and they have also invested millions of dollars to lobby members of Congress in an attempt to lobby Congress to pass new laws. They believe that hindering "network neutrality" is not conducive to innovation and violates the principles of openness and fairness of the Internet. They demanded that "network neutrality" be confirmed by law and impose a fine of 500,000 US dollars on operators who violate "network neutrality".
Around the legislative dispute of network neutrality, broadband enterprises and content providers have spared no effort to lobby in Washington, but broadband enterprises are three times as many as content providers. At&T Company. Since 1998, companies such as T have invested about $230.9 million in parliamentarians, while companies such as Google and Amazon have invested $7 12 billion.