當互聯網內容經過線纜和通道傳輸到消費者那裡時，所有的互聯網內容都應該受到平等的對待——現在這個原則似乎行將就木。
美國聯邦通信委員會（Federal Communications Commission，簡稱FCC）本週三表示，根據該機構擬議的新規則，像迪士尼(Disney)、谷歌(Google)和Netflix這樣的公司將可以向康卡斯特(Comcast)和Verizon等互聯網服務供應商(ISP)支付費用，從而取得更快的專用通道，把視頻和其他內容更快地傳輸給用戶。
在擬議的規則中，FCC徹底改變了其在“網絡中立性”(net neutrality)上的立場。網絡中立性是指：互聯網用戶對於自己選擇查看的任何合法內容，都應該擁有同等的查看能力，而在提供產品給用戶的過程中，所有合法的內容提供者都不應受到區別對待。
三個月前，聯邦上訴法院第二次推翻了旨在保障互聯網自由性和開放性的FCC規則，新提出的規則就是在這樣的背景下擬訂的。
新的規則可能會從根本上重塑將互聯網內容傳輸給消費者的方式。舉例來說，如果某家遊戲公司無力承擔快速通道的費用，用戶可能就會對其產品失去興趣，這些產品也就無法成功。
新的規則最終可能還會導致價格上漲，因為迪士尼和Netflix等公司可能會把快速通道的使用費用轉嫁在用戶頭上。這樣的快速通道，彷彿是擁堵的高速公路上，那條暢通的拼車專用道。
消費者團體立即對這個提案發起了攻擊，他們認為此舉不僅會導致費用上升，而且資金充裕的大公司在向ISP支付大筆費用後就會受到優待，不利於創新商業模式的小型初創公司— —這遏制了下一個Facebook或Twitter的誕生。
“如果新的規則通過了，這種屈服將體現出華盛頓最糟糕一面，”托德·奧博伊爾(Todd O'Boyle)說，他是“共同事業”組織(Common Cause)媒體和民主改革倡議項目(Media and Democracy Reform Initiative)的主任。“美國人得到過承諾，而且理應得到這個承諾：互聯網上沒有收費公路、快速通道和審查制度——無論是來自企業還是政府。”
他還說，如果新規則在這個方面打了任何折扣，“那都將是背叛。”
寬帶公司已經在奮力爭取鋪設專用車道的權利了。Verizon在上訴法院論辯時表示，如果它獲准進行這種類型的交易，它就會那麼做。
FCC官員為新規則進行了辯護，稱這些規則仍能保障互聯網的開放性，因為該機構將對ISP的特別收費項目進行逐一評估，考察它對消費者來說是否公平，能否提供充分的競爭空間。
FCC官員說，新的規則要求ISP說明會如何對待所有互聯網流量，以及會以什麼條件提供快速通道，而且還要求ISP以一種“商業上合理的方式”行動。FCC向公眾徵詢意見時，會提供該標準的細節。
擬議的新規則還要求ISP披露，在分配快速通道的過程中，是否偏袒了本公司旗下的內容提供商。對於全美最大的高速ISP康卡斯特來說，這一規定可能非同小可，因為它擁有NBC環球(NBCUniversal)。
而且，康卡斯特正在向政府申請，批准它和第三大寬帶提供商時代華納有線電視公司(Time Warner Cable)的合併。反對這樁合併案的人說，作為一家寬帶公司，康卡斯特擴大網絡規模後，會有更大動力偏袒該公司自身的內容，而與該公司無關的內容就不會得到同等的優待。
FCC主席湯姆·惠勒(Tom Wheeler)數月前就已經開始暗示，聯邦上訴法院的裁決推翻了之前的規則，這可能會迫使FCC放寬對“怎樣才算是開放的互聯網”的定義。
之前的規則禁止ISP與亞馬遜(Amazon)或Netflix等公司做交易，讓這些公司付費使用快速通道，以更快的網速把流媒體內容傳輸給觀眾。該法院表示，聯邦法律沒有把互聯網列為公用事業，因此不能套用公用事業的監管方式。
反對者表示，這些新規則似乎漏洞很多，特別是試圖強加“商業上合理”的標準時。
“'商業上合理'這個標準的本質是歧視，”消費者權益團體“公共知識”(Public Knowledge)副會長邁克爾·溫伯格(Michael Weinberg)在一份聲明中說。“而網絡中立性的核心是無歧視。”
他還表示，FCC和法院已經承認，如果一家內容提供商的服務對競爭產生了威脅，那麼在該內容企業通過網絡接觸消費者時，ISP收取更高費率在商業上是合理的。
“按照這個標準，ISP可以強行給互聯網上的創新設置一個新的價格門檻，”溫伯格說。
消費者可以付錢給ISP，從而獲得速度更快的互聯網服務。但無論他們選擇何種網速，在新的規則下，他們總是會更快地接收到某些內容，這取決於內容提供商為哪些內容付了錢。
關於網絡中立性的爭鬥已經持續了至少10年，並且還有可能至少持續到FCC新規則的正式出台。該機構前兩次製定的規則，都被ISP訴至法院，導致規則被裁決為無效。
關於新的網絡中立性標準，由於聯邦法院現在已經為FCC提供了一個框架，讓它填充監管舉措的具體細節，因此針對其細節的遊說活動現在有可能增多。
擬議的新規則由惠勒及其下屬工作人員起草，從周四開始分發給該機構的其他四個委員，並將於5月15日開始公眾諮詢。這些規則可能會在今年年底由FCC全體投票表決。
翻譯：土土
In Policy Shift, F.C.C. Will Allow A Web Fast Lane
By EDWARD WYATT April 24, 2014The principle that all Internet content should be treated equally as it flows through cables and pipes to consumers looks all but dead.
Companies like Disney, Google or Netflix will be allowed to pay Internet service providers like Comcast and Verizon for special, faster lanes to send video and other content to their customers under new rules to be proposed by the Federal Communications Commission, the agency said on Wednesday.The proposed rules are a turnaround for the agency on what is known as net neutrality — the idea that Internet users should have equal ability to see any legal content they choose, and that no providers of legal content should be discriminated against in providing their offerings to consumers.
The proposal comes three months after a federal appeals court
struck down, for the second time, agency rules intended to guarantee a free and open Internet.
The rules could radically reshape how Internet content is delivered to consumers. For example, if a gaming company cannot afford the fast track to players, customers could lose interest and its product could fail.
The rules are also likely to eventually raise prices as the likes of Disney and Netflix pass on to customers whatever they pay for the speedier lanes, which are the digital equivalent of an uncongested car pool lane on a busy freeway.
Consumer groups immediately attacked the proposal, saying that not only would costs rise, but that big, rich companies with the money to pay large fees to Internet service providers would be favored over small start-ups with innovative business models — stifling the birth of the next Facebook or Twitter.
“If it goes forward, this capitulation will represent Washington at its worst,” said Todd O’Boyle, program director of Common Cause’s Media and Democracy Reform Initiative. “Americans were promised, and deserve, an Internet that is free of toll roads, fast lanes and censorship — corporate or governmental.”
If the new rules deliver anything less, he added, “that would be a betrayal.”
Broadband companies have pushed for the right to build special lanes. Verizon said during appeals court arguments that if it could make those kinds of deals, it would.
F.C.C. officials defended the proposal, saying the rules would still protect an open Internet because the agency would evaluate on a case-by-case basis whether particular charges by Internet service providers were fair to consumers and allowed for adequate competition.
The providers would have to disclose how they treat all Internet traffic and on what terms they offer more rapid lanes, and would be required to act “in a commercially reasonable manner,” agency officials said. That standard would be fleshed out as the agency seeks public comment.
The proposed rules will also require Internet service providers to disclose whether in assigning faster lanes, they have favored their affiliated companies that provide content. That could have significant implications for Comcast, the nation’s largest provider of high-speed Internet service, because it owns NBCUniversal.
Also, Comcast is asking for government permission to take over Time Warner Cable, the third-largest broadband provider, and opponents of the merger say that expanding its reach as a broadband company will give Comcast more incentive to favor its own content over that of unaffiliated programmers.
Tom Wheeler, the F.C.C.’s chairman, has signaled for months that the federal appeals court decision striking down the earlier rules could force the commission to loosen its definitions of what constitutes an open Internet.
Those earlier rules barred Internet service providers from making deals with services like Amazon or Netflix to allow those companies to pay to stream their products to viewers through a faster, express lane on the web. The court said that because the Internet is not considered a utility under federal law, it was not subject to that sort of regulation.
Opponents of the new proposed rules said they appeared to be full of holes, particularly in seeking to impose the “commercially reasonable” standard.
“The very essence of a ‘commercial reasonableness’ standard is discrimination,” Michael Weinberg, a vice president at Public Knowledge, a consumer advocacy group, said in a statement. “And the core of net neutrality is nondiscrimination.”
He added that the commission and courts had acknowledged that it could be commercially reasonable for a broadband provider to charge a content company higher rates for access to consumers because that company’s service was competitively threatening.
“This standard allows Internet service providers to impose a new price of entry for innovation on the Internet,” Mr. Weinberg said.
Consumers can pay Internet service providers for a higher-speed Internet connection. But whatever speed they choose, under the new rules, they will get some content faster, depending on what the content provider has paid for.
The fight over net neutrality has gone on for at least a decade, and is likely to continue at least until the F.C.C. settles on new rules. Each of the last two times the agency has written rules, one of the Internet service providers has taken it to court to have the rules invalidated.
If anything, lobbying over the details of the new net neutrality standard is likely to increase now that the federal court has provided a framework for the F.C.C. to work from as it fills in the specifics of its regulatory authority.
The proposed rules, drafted by Mr. Wheeler and his staff, will be circulated to the agency’s other four commissioners beginning on Thursday and will be released for public comment on May 15. They are likely to be put to a vote by the full commission by the end of the year.
News of the F.C.C. proposal was
first reported online by The Wall Street Journal.
沒有留言:
張貼留言