Arguments have raged across the web during the past week about the Verizon-Google Legislative Framework Proposal (read the full document). Opinions range from “it’s great” to “this threatens the underlying foundation of the Internet” and “Google’s gone evil”.

在过去一周中，有关Verizon-Google立法框架提案的争论在网络上肆虐(请阅读完整文档 )。 意见范围从“它很棒”到“这威胁了互联网的基础”和“谷歌化为乌有” 。

This is my take. The proposal primarily affects US Internet users and, although I’m not a US citizen, the issues will almost certainly affect and/or influence other parts of the world. I do not claim to have unbiased opinions or legal expertise. You may agree or disagree; the discussions will continue for many months — probably years.

这是我的看法。 该提案主要影响美国的互联网用户，尽管我不是美国公民，但这些问题几乎肯定会影响和/或影响世界其他地区。 我并不声称自己拥有公正的意见或法律专业知识。 您可能同意或不同意； 讨论将持续数月，甚至数年。

什么是净中性？ (What is Net Neutrality?)

In essence, net neutrality means all web traffic is treated equally. It does not matter whether the user is downloading a Wikipedia article, a YouTube video, a spam email, or an illegally copied MP3 — no data packet has priority over any another.

本质上，网络中立性意味着所有网络流量都受到同等对待。 用户是否下载Wikipedia文章，YouTube视频，垃圾邮件或非法复制的MP3都没有关系-没有数据包比其他任何数据包具有优先权。

The Internet operates under this principal … to an extent. Individual ISPs may restrict your bandwidth or perhaps limit torrent downloads during busy periods. Mobile operators usually operate stricter controls to ensure networks remain responsive: they can — and will — block certain content.

互联网在此原则下……在一定程度上运作。 各个ISP可能会限制您的带宽，或者在繁忙时段可能会限制torrent下载。 移动运营商通常会执行更严格的控制措施，以确保网络保持响应能力：他们可以并且将会阻止某些内容。

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had been negotiating with leading providers to outline a framework for the future regulation of US Internet services. This effort was recently abandoned.

联邦通信委员会(FCC)一直在与领先的提供商进行谈判，以概述美国互联网服务的未来监管框架。 这项工作最近被放弃了。

Google和Verizon的建议是什么？ (What is the Google and Verizon proposal?)

The Verizon-Google Legislative Framework Proposal is a response from both companies to the debate in Congress about the National Broadband Plan and the US Government’s role in the future of the Internet.

Verizon-Google立法框架提案是两家公司对国会关于国家宽带计划以及美国政府在互联网未来中的作用的辩论的回应。

Google and Verizon are free to make any recommendations they choose. Both companies have an agenda and neither would make a statement that was not in their best interest. Congress can choose to accept, reject or ignore any proposal and the recommendations are not US legislation. Yet.

Google和Verizon可以自由选择任何建议。 两家公司都有自己的议程，而且都不会发表不符合其最大利益的声明。 国会可以选择接受，拒绝或忽略任何提案，而这些建议不是美国立法。 然而。

The key points are summarized below:

关键点总结如下：

1. Non-discrimination against lawful Internet content A broadband ISP would be prohibited from preventing user access to lawful content or services. The provider must disclose accurate information about their capabilities and network management. The FCC would be responsible for enforcing consumer protection and can impose fines of up to $2 million for companies violating the rules.

1.不歧视合法互联网内容宽带ISP将被禁止阻止用户访问合法内容或服务。 提供商必须披露有关其功能和网络管理的准确信息。 FCC将负责加强对消费者的保护，并对违反规定的公司处以最高200万美元的罚款。

These proposals appear reasonable and received the least attention. However, non-discrimination is limited to “lawful” content without clarifying that term or identifying the policing authority. The flip-side of the proposal is that ISPs could block illegal content.

这些建议似乎是合理的，受到的关注最少。 但是，不歧视仅限于“合法”内容，而无需弄清该术语或确定治安机关。 该建议的另一面是，ISP可以阻止非法内容。

Laws differ from country to country. Even legal practices in one US state may be outlawed in another. Possible issues include:

法律因国家而异。 甚至美国一个州的法律惯例也可能在另一州被禁止。 可能的问题包括：

• Sectors such as the entertainment industry could argue that certain types of content breach copyright laws. This could include pirated material or works that mention or are influenced by another.娱乐行业等行业可能会争辩说某些类型的内容违反了版权法。 这可能包括盗版材料或提及或受他人影响的作品。
• Companies could use legal precedents to block competitor services and gain an advantage.公司可以利用法律先例来阻止竞争对手的服务并获得优势。
• Individuals or organizations could use privacy or other laws to block negative articles.个人或组织可以使用隐私权或其他法律来阻止负面文章。

The proposal could hinder free speech and innovation. In addition, an ISP could be exempt from net neutrality principles if it can claim it’s upholding the law. Even a $2 million fine would be a negligible risk to most large carriers — especially if they can profit from prioritizing content.

该提议可能会阻碍言论自由和创新。 此外，如果ISP可以声称自己遵守法律，则可以免于遵守网络中立原则。 对于大多数大型运营商而言，即使是200万美元的罚款也可以忽略不计，尤其是如果他们可以从优先考虑内容中获利。

Finally, it’s interesting to look back to January 2010 when Google threatened to quit China because its Government blocked content which it deemed illegal. How is this different?

最后，有趣的是，回顾一下2010年1月，当时Google威胁要退出中国，因为其政府封锁了它认为非法的内容。 这有什么不同？

2. Network management ISPs are permitted to engage in reasonable network management to provide a reliable service, e.g. reduce congestion, ensure security, addresses harmful traffic, etc. Many have latched on to this issue as a direct attack on net neutrality but ISPs already engage in the practice. The proposal states they should be transparent and disclose all network management policies.

2.网络管理允许ISP进行合理的网络管理以提供可靠的服务，例如减少拥塞，确保安全性，解决有害流量等。许多人已将这一问题锁定为对网络中立性的直接攻击，但ISP已经参与其中在实践中。 该提案指出，它们应该透明并公开所有网络管理策略。

The most controversial element is Additional Online Services. In effect, ISPs would be free to offer alternative non-internet services which are “distinguishable in scope and purpose from broadband Internet access service”. These services can make use of the internet and prioritize traffic. The FCC would monitor the systems to ensure they do not threaten the meaningful availability of broadband Internet access.

最有争议的元素是附加在线服务 。 实际上，ISP将免费提供替代的非互联网服务，这些服务“在范围和目的上与宽带Internet接入服务有区别”。 这些服务可以利用互联网并为流量分配优先级。 FCC将监视系统，以确保它们不会威胁到宽带Internet访问的有意义的可用性。

Services such as health and gaming systems have been mentioned, but it’s difficult to evaluate the effect of alternative networks until they’re implemented. It’s unlikely we’ll see separate commercial networks for websites such as YouTube but it remains a possibility. Few people would want to use a fragmented Internet.

已经提到了诸如健康和游戏系统之类的服务，但要在实施替代网络之前很难评估其效果。 我们不太可能为YouTube等网站看到单独的商业网络，但仍有可能。 很少有人会使用分散的Internet。

3. Exclusion for wireless With the exception of service transparency, wireless networks are excused from legislation because of their “unique technical and operational characteristics”. This seems strange and many have speculated a conspiracy: Google could want Verizon to prioritize Android devices.

3.无线排斥除了服务透明性之外，无线网络由于其“独特的技术和操作特性”而被排除在立法之外。 这似乎很奇怪，而且许多人都在猜测一个阴谋：谷歌可能希望Verizon优先考虑Android设备。

Wireless networks could become the predominant method of net access over the next few years. If that occurs, what is the point of these proposals? Again, there’s no definition of what constitutes a wireless network. Could a cable ISP put a router outside your house, claim they have a wireless network and avoid legislation?

在未来几年中，无线网络可能会成为主要的网络访问方法。 如果发生这种情况，这些建议的意义何在？ 同样，没有定义什么构成无线网络。 电缆ISP是否可以将路由器放置在您的房屋外，声称它们具有无线网络并避免立法？

Overall, I find it strange that Google and Verizon have stepped into the political debate. They may be key players but many of the proposals seem too vague to be workable. At worst, the companies appear to be advocating net neutrality exclusions and have been attacked accordingly. The biggest worry is that Congress will approve legislation without an appreciation of the underlying technical issues.

总体而言，我感到奇怪的是Google和Verizon介入了政治辩论。 他们可能是关键角色，但许多建议似乎过于含糊，无法实施。 在最坏的情况下，这些公司似乎主张排除网络中立性，并因此受到了攻击。 最大的担忧是，国会将在不了解基本技术问题的情况下批准立法。

The debate has just begun.

辩论才刚刚开始。

翻译自: https://www.sitepoint.com/google-verizon-net-neutrality/