美國(guó)持續(xù)十余年的網(wǎng)絡(luò)中立（network neutrality）之爭(zhēng)，在本月早些時(shí)候達(dá)到了高潮。網(wǎng)絡(luò)中立概念就是希望網(wǎng)絡(luò)運(yùn)營(yíng)商對(duì)于網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)商要一視同仁，不得采取因人而異的收費(fèi)方式，防止運(yùn)營(yíng)商從商業(yè)利益出發(fā)控制傳輸數(shù)據(jù)的優(yōu)先級(jí)，保證網(wǎng)絡(luò)數(shù)據(jù)傳輸?shù)摹爸辛⑿浴薄?/p>

針對(duì)聯(lián)邦通信委員會(huì)(FCC)于今年2月開(kāi)始施行的《開(kāi)放互聯(lián)網(wǎng)法令》（the Open Internet Order），華盛頓特區(qū)的聯(lián)邦上訴法院就聽(tīng)取了支持者與反對(duì)者的口頭辯論。誠(chéng)然，法官提出的問(wèn)題對(duì)最終裁決幾乎沒(méi)有什么指導(dǎo)性，但網(wǎng)絡(luò)中立的支持者和反對(duì)者都承認(rèn)，F(xiàn)CC度過(guò)了艱難的一天。

法院重點(diǎn)關(guān)注了聯(lián)邦通信委員會(huì)規(guī)定的三個(gè)方面。第一，法官對(duì)FCC監(jiān)管固話網(wǎng)絡(luò)內(nèi)部流量（比如有線通或數(shù)字用戶線路系統(tǒng)流量）的權(quán)力提出質(zhì)疑。第二，他們對(duì)涉及無(wú)線網(wǎng)絡(luò)內(nèi)部的網(wǎng)絡(luò)中立規(guī)則的合理性提出挑戰(zhàn)。第三，他們仔細(xì)審查了互聯(lián)互通領(lǐng)域的管理規(guī)定，即針對(duì)網(wǎng)絡(luò)之間如何交換流量的規(guī)定。

法官似乎在第二和第三個(gè)問(wèn)題，即移動(dòng)網(wǎng)絡(luò)和互聯(lián)網(wǎng)絡(luò)的問(wèn)題上，對(duì)FCC提出了很大的質(zhì)疑。其主要關(guān)注點(diǎn)集中在法令出臺(tái)最后時(shí)刻的一些修改。法官明確問(wèn)到，公眾是否得到了恰當(dāng)?shù)耐ㄖ?，這些修改又是否被恰當(dāng)?shù)丶{入了整個(gè)監(jiān)管制度。FCC很好地應(yīng)對(duì)了第一個(gè)問(wèn)題，不過(guò)即便如此，在“為什么最后的方案與最初的提議相差甚遠(yuǎn)”這個(gè)問(wèn)題上，他們也受到了嚴(yán)厲的質(zhì)疑。

這些質(zhì)疑對(duì)未來(lái)有什么預(yù)示意義？只要這三個(gè)問(wèn)題沒(méi)有搞清楚，監(jiān)管政策就可能出現(xiàn)漏洞。正如某位法官所說(shuō)，取消其中一部分規(guī)定，就可能導(dǎo)致奇怪的結(jié)果——人們讓手機(jī)連接蜂窩網(wǎng)絡(luò)時(shí)，必須遵守某些規(guī)定，讓同樣一部手機(jī)連接WiFi時(shí)，則必須遵守另外一些規(guī)定。當(dāng)用戶在同一建筑的不同地點(diǎn)使用手機(jī)時(shí)，常常會(huì)出現(xiàn)這種情況。

類似的，如果不能厘清流量進(jìn)入網(wǎng)絡(luò)的方式，那么網(wǎng)絡(luò)流量的監(jiān)管規(guī)定也起不到阻止差異化對(duì)待的效果。FCC唯有解決這些問(wèn)題，才能達(dá)到其監(jiān)管目的，但他們似乎并沒(méi)有做到這一點(diǎn)。

在這些問(wèn)題中，有許多都源于FCC將互聯(lián)網(wǎng)納入傳統(tǒng)電話監(jiān)管體制這一決定，這種決定多少有些令人驚愕，有悖于兩黨數(shù)十年來(lái)達(dá)成的共識(shí)。而美國(guó)生機(jī)勃勃的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)產(chǎn)業(yè)就建立于這種共識(shí)之上，讓世界上所有其他國(guó)家羨慕并紛紛效仿。

監(jiān)管制度的改變，給造就了互聯(lián)網(wǎng)公司，而且讓其他國(guó)家艷羨不已的創(chuàng)新風(fēng)潮帶來(lái)了潛在風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。今年2月之前，由美國(guó)決策者制定的政策讓創(chuàng)新者能夠自由地試驗(yàn)新型產(chǎn)品和商業(yè)模式，除非那是有害的嘗試。簡(jiǎn)而言之，面對(duì)創(chuàng)新，過(guò)去默認(rèn)的答案是“可以”，新服務(wù)才得以雨后春筍般涌現(xiàn)，而不需要征求任何人的許可。

放任《開(kāi)放互聯(lián)網(wǎng)法令》以如今的形式存在下去，將破壞這種情況，默認(rèn)的答案從“可以”變?yōu)椤安粶?zhǔn)”。就如同主持口頭辯論的法官所說(shuō)，F(xiàn)CC拋棄了法院建議的繼續(xù)傳統(tǒng)監(jiān)管的藍(lán)圖。國(guó)會(huì)考慮采用新法案已經(jīng)很長(zhǎng)時(shí)間了，并沒(méi)有將互聯(lián)網(wǎng)強(qiáng)行納入適用于電話網(wǎng)絡(luò)的舊有監(jiān)管制度，但這樣的舉動(dòng)似乎不符合現(xiàn)在的政治氣候。與此同時(shí)，完全或部分推翻《開(kāi)放互聯(lián)網(wǎng)法令》的司法裁決，可能會(huì)是邁向過(guò)去成功管理方式的第一步。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

本文作者是賓夕法尼亞大學(xué)通信、計(jì)算機(jī)和信息科學(xué)專業(yè)約翰?H?切斯特納特教席法學(xué)教授，他也是該?？萍?、創(chuàng)新和競(jìng)爭(zhēng)中心的創(chuàng)會(huì)理事。

譯者：嚴(yán)匡正

審校：任文科

The decade-long debate over network neutrality reached a moment of truth earlier this month when a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., heard oral arguments in the judicial challenge to the open Internet rules adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in February. Admittedly, the questions that judges ask often provide little guidance as to what they will eventually decide. But both proponents and opponents of network neutrality agree that the FCC had a tough day.

The court focused attention on three aspects of the FCC’s order. First, the judges questioned the agency’s authority to regulate the handling of traffic within fixed-line networks, such as cable modem or DSL systems. Second, they challenged the propriety of the rules mandating network neutrality within wireless networks. Third, they scrutinized the rules governing interconnection, which is how networks exchange traffic with each other.

The judges seemed to challenge the agency hard on the second and third issues, the ones regarding mobile networks and interconnection. Their primary concern focused on certain last-minute changes to the order. Specifically, the judges questioned whether the public was given proper notice of those changes and whether the changes were properly integrated into the overall regulatory scheme. The FCC fared the best on the first issue, but even then it faced tough questions about why the scheme differed so much from the way the rules were initially proposed.

What might these questions signal for the future? Losing on any of these three issues would risk leaving the regulatory scheme incoherent. As one of the judges noted, striking down part of the rules would lead to the strange result subjecting people to one set of rules when using a cell phone connected to a cellular network and to another set of rules when the same phone is connected via WiFi, an occurrence common when users use phones in different parts of the same house. Similarly, rules that regulated how traffic is treated within a network would likely prove ineffective in preventing differential treatment if they could not also address the ways traffic gets to a network. The agency had to run the table if it was going to accomplish its goals, and it appears to have fallen short.

Many of these problems stem from the somewhat surprising decision to fold the Internet into the regime designed to regulate the traditional telephone system. This change represents a sharp break with a decades-long, bipartisan consensus that has created a vibrant online industry that is the envy of other countries and instead falls in line the approach followed by every other country in the world.

The change in approach represents substantial risk to the ethos of innovation that has created Internet companies that are the envy of the rest of the world. The approach followed by U.S. policymakers until February of this year left innovators free to experiment with new products and business models unless the new practice is shown to be harmful. In short, the default answer for innovation has been yes, allowing new services to emerge without asking anyone’s permission.

Allowing the Open Internet Order to stand in its current form risks reversing this presumption, changing the default answer from yes to no. As the judge presiding at oral argument noted, the FCC abandoned the blueprint for continuing the tradition of light-touch regulation that the court provided in its prior decision. Congress has long considered enacting new legislation instead of forcing the Internet into the old regulatory regime designed for the telephone system, but such a step seems unlikely in the current political climate. In the meantime, a judicial decision overturning the Open Internet Order in whole or in part might provide the first step to returning to the approach that has proven so successful.

Christopher S. Yoo is the John H. Chestnut Professor of Law, Communication, and Computer & Information Science and Founding Director of the Center for Technology, Innovation and Competition at the University of Pennsylvania.