黄岩岛地理位置,刘琳我们约会吧,怀化市人民政府网
|
3.2 Public interest and industry interest
Some researchers believe that the essence of Network Neutrality debate is the inevitable result of conflicts between Internet companies and telecom operators in the market environment of industrial convergence, as well as the conflict between departmental interests and public interests. This argument directly points to the motivation of economic interests through the freedom and regulation level of the Internet.
With the increase of broadband capacity and network equipment investment, Internet service providers and telecom operators found that they failed to get extra profits while they were investing and expanding the network to solve the network congestion problem. Instead, those free broadband content providers and other Internet value-added services, such as Google, Amazon and YAHOO, have gained rapid economic growth from the expanding network broadband and devices. This situation directly causes that Internet service providers and telecom operators oppose Network Neutrality and call for the implementation of Two-Tiered Internet standard, so as to ensure their undamaged economic interests. In this regard, the supporter group expressed concern about the possible development of the Internet into a "Two-Tiered" system, holding that the system does have the potential to guarantee the benefits of Internet access services and its associated enterprises. However, according to the rule of market economy, Internet access service is controlled by a few large companies, so at least a powerful third party management institution is needed to maintain market competition in this field. That is to say, the support group expects to restrict the behavior of Internet service providers through government legislation. More importantly, the Two-Tiered Internet standard may damage the public interest, which is the reason why supporters have made a clear-cut stand to put forward the legislative appeal of Network Neutrality.
3.3 Market competition and technological innovation
The supporter group has always insisted that Network Neutrality is an effective way to maintain market competition in the field of network access services. Based on this, the opposition first put forward that it is not only unnecessary to set up a Network Neutrality policy on Internet management, but also produces negative consequences that impede the deployment of Internet facilities and the progress of technology. Based on the basic view of economics, the aggravation of competition in specific areas will directly reduce profits, which will make investors lose market confidence and reduce investment in the field of network access services. Secondly, the opposition believes that the technological innovation will inevitably be affected if the network access providers are required to manage the network in a specific way or provide services. Opponents also point out that the development of new technologies will help to offset any non discriminatory behavior.
The supporters argue that promoting national policies to achieve user expectations and ensuring openness in the Internet market is an effective way to establish interest protection mechanism and promote Internet business expansion. The establishment of a unified management system to prevent Internet discrimination is a positive strategy for the further development of the Internet. While ensuring the stability of the market requires encouraging investment and promoting new technologies and new products, this can not be at the expense of users and Internet content providers. In addition, the current law is not only inflexible but also expensive, so it is necessary to improve the management system through legislation.
4. Conclusion
The legislation of Network Neutrality is controversial. Someone argues that Network Neutrality inhibits Internet innovation. Looks like it's right. For example, watching video is free of traffic. If Network Neutrality legislation applies, this innovation is not available. But the question is, do we really want to encourage innovation in this competitive way? Because traffic is originally squeezed out from existing channels. Users themselves are not necessarily profit. Moreover, competition among small firms becomes harder because small companies cannot afford to discriminate against pay. Therefore, this innovation can suppress the entire Internet. Secondly, someone feels that free competition can solve problems in legislation that exist in network problems, because customers have enough freedom to choose. This argument makes sense in pure free markets. But internet providers are somewhat different because changing networks is a hard thing, unlike shopping at supermarket where you can buy whatever you want. Changing networks may mean a lot of trouble for changing lines to switch devices. So this market isn't fully competitive. Third, someone believes that this creates excessive burdens on network providers. But does it really burden? Apart from "loss potential income", there is no other burden. And loss potential income is precisely the purpose of this regulation.
The legislation is more inclined to adopt a neutral way since it is impossible to judge how much economic interests can be generated by the implementation or opposition to Network Neutrality. Instead, the market can achieve the "survival of the fittest" through competition, so as to enable the market to achieve "survival of the fittest" through competition. Just like the position taken by the Supreme Court of the United States in The Anti-Trust Act, unless business practices have caused irreparable consequences for market competition, the behavior cannot be identified as illegal. This requires further clarification of the connotation of Network Neutrality, based on which the policy of Network Neutrality shall be amended. In a word, the intermediate route is an effective way to build and promote the Network Neutrality legislation on the premise of reducing the damage to the interests of the two sides as far as possible.
|
