美國持續十余年的網絡中立（network neutrality）之爭，在本月早些時候達到了高潮。網絡中立概念就是希望網絡運營商對于網絡服務商要一視同仁，不得采取因人而異的收費方式，防止運營商從商業利益出發控制傳輸數據的優先級，保證網絡數據傳輸的“中立性”。

針對聯邦通信委員會(FCC)于今年2月開始施行的《開放互聯網法令》（the Open Internet Order），華盛頓特區的聯邦上訴法院就聽取了支持者與反對者的口頭辯論。誠然，法官提出的問題對最終裁決幾乎沒有什么指導性，但網絡中立的支持者和反對者都承認，FCC度過了艱難的一天。

法院重點關注了聯邦通信委員會規定的三個方面。第一，法官對FCC監管固話網絡內部流量（比如有線通或數字用戶線路系統流量）的權力提出質疑。第二，他們對涉及無線網絡內部的網絡中立規則的合理性提出挑戰。第三，他們仔細審查了互聯互通領域的管理規定，即針對網絡之間如何交換流量的規定。

法官似乎在第二和第三個問題，即移動網絡和互聯網絡的問題上，對FCC提出了很大的質疑。其主要關注點集中在法令出臺最后時刻的一些修改。法官明確問到，公眾是否得到了恰當的通知，這些修改又是否被恰當地納入了整個監管制度。FCC很好地應對了第一個問題，不過即便如此，在“為什么最后的方案與最初的提議相差甚遠”這個問題上，他們也受到了嚴厲的質疑。

這些質疑對未來有什么預示意義？只要這三個問題沒有搞清楚，監管政策就可能出現漏洞。正如某位法官所說，取消其中一部分規定，就可能導致奇怪的結果——人們讓手機連接蜂窩網絡時，必須遵守某些規定，讓同樣一部手機連接WiFi時，則必須遵守另外一些規定。當用戶在同一建筑的不同地點使用手機時，常常會出現這種情況。

類似的，如果不能厘清流量進入網絡的方式，那么網絡流量的監管規定也起不到阻止差異化對待的效果。FCC唯有解決這些問題，才能達到其監管目的，但他們似乎并沒有做到這一點。

在這些問題中，有許多都源于FCC將互聯網納入傳統電話監管體制這一決定，這種決定多少有些令人驚愕，有悖于兩黨數十年來達成的共識。而美國生機勃勃的互聯網產業就建立于這種共識之上，讓世界上所有其他國家羨慕并紛紛效仿。

監管制度的改變，給造就了互聯網公司，而且讓其他國家艷羨不已的創新風潮帶來了潛在風險。今年2月之前，由美國決策者制定的政策讓創新者能夠自由地試驗新型產品和商業模式，除非那是有害的嘗試。簡而言之，面對創新，過去默認的答案是“可以”，新服務才得以雨后春筍般涌現，而不需要征求任何人的許可。

放任《開放互聯網法令》以如今的形式存在下去，將破壞這種情況，默認的答案從“可以”變為“不準”。就如同主持口頭辯論的法官所說，FCC拋棄了法院建議的繼續傳統監管的藍圖。國會考慮采用新法案已經很長時間了，并沒有將互聯網強行納入適用于電話網絡的舊有監管制度，但這樣的舉動似乎不符合現在的政治氣候。與此同時，完全或部分推翻《開放互聯網法令》的司法裁決，可能會是邁向過去成功管理方式的第一步。（財富中文網）

本文作者是賓夕法尼亞大學通信、計算機和信息科學專業約翰?H?切斯特納特教席法學教授，他也是該校科技、創新和競爭中心的創會理事。

譯者：嚴匡正

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.