PBS高端访谈:中立原则对市场革新的影响

 　　JUDY WOODRUFF: Now the fallout over a big decision that may change how the Web works and the future of so-called net neutrality.

　　Hari Sreenivasan is our guide, beginning with some background.

　　HARI SREENIVASAN: Net neutrality is the idea that broadband Internet service providers, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Verizon and others, should treat everything that flows across the Internet equally. That means preventing service providers from creating fast lanes for sites they have business ties with, such as streaming video services like Hulu or Netflix, and slowing access to others, like Amazon.

　　It also means not charging more for YouTube and other sites based on their heavier bandwidth use or in exchange for faster speeds, all of which could affect what consumers see online, how fast, and at what price. The principles were set out by the Federal Communications Commission nearly a decade ago.

　　The agency enshrined them in its Open Internet Order adopted in 2010. But Verizon sued to challenge the agency's authority, and, yesterday, the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found the FCC acted improperly¹. The 81-page ruling said the agency is wrong to classify Internet service providers as information services, but at the same time regulate them as common carriers, meaning as it does telephone and utility companies.

　　While the FCC decides whether to appeal, Amazon and others are watching to see if the broadband networks impose their own rules, favoring some content companies over others.

　　For its part, Verizon issued a statement yesterday that said, in part: "Verizon has been and remains² committed to the open Internet. This will not change in light of the court's decision."

　　The ruling doesn't apply to wireless³ services accessed through mobile devices, which represent a growing share of the market.

　　We have two views on this.

　　From Washington, I'm joined by Craig Aaron, president and CEO of Free Press, a nonpartisan, nonprofit media reform group, and Robert McDowell, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. He served as a commissioner⁴ on the Federal Communications Commission from 2006 to 2013.

　　Craig Aaron, I want to start with you.

　　You have called this a dangerous development for the free Internet as we know it. Why?

　　CRAIG AARON, Free Press: Well, I really think this court decision puts at risk so much of what we love about the Internet.

　　With these rules being invalidated, it really leaves consumers at the mercy of phone and cable companies, who are now free to block websites if they want to, interfere⁵ with traffic, favor certain sites and services over other sites and services. And I think that's bad news for the average Internet user, that the agency that is supposed to be protecting them has been told it has no oversight⁶ of the most important communications network of the 21st century.

　　HARI SREENIVASAN:Robert McDowell, you were against these rules even when it was proposed back when you were on the commission. You think it is a good thing.

　　ROBERT MCDOWELL,Hudson institute:That's right.

　　First of all, thank you for having me on. Apologies to Judy Woodruff for not wearing my Duke University tie tonight.

　　ROBERT MCDOWELL: But, in any case, actually, I didvote against these.

　　Consumers actually have ample protections if there is going to be anti-competitive conduct. Basically, the Internet before December 21, 2010, which was the vote on this order, was blossoming beautifully before that. It is going to blossom beautifully after this, but there are antitrust laws, there are consumer protection laws. The Federal Trade Commission has a lot of authority.

　　The Federal Communications Commission actually still has a lot of authority even under this case and through merger⁸ reviews and other things. States attorneys general, the plaintiffs bar, if anything is going to happen, there is going to be massive class-action suits. So consumers have a lot of arrows in their quiver to protect them.

　　HARI SREENIVASAN:Robert McDowell, staying with you for a second, there seems to be an issue in this case on whether the Internet is a luxury or whether it's a utility, like so many other countries around the world perceive it and even parts of America do. So, if it's a utility, should it not be regulated like one?

　　ROBERT MCDOWELL:It's neither a luxury nor a utility.

　　And I think actually our communication laws need to be updated to reflect this new age. We're still built on a foundation, our laws are still built on a foundation that goes back to 1934, and really the 19th century, of regulating monopolies. And the market is much more dynamic and just different the way it works technologically⁹.

　　So I think we need to have a fundamental, constructive¹⁰ conversation with Free Press, myself, anyone who is interested, about how the new laws should look so that consumers are protected and that we also can foster innovation and investment.

　　HARI SREENIVASAN:Craig Aaron, what about that idea of innovation? And in this particular case does this actually increase or decrease innovation...

　　CRAIG AARON: Well, I think it's potentially very harmful to innovation, because the beauty of net neutrality is that it created that even playing field, where anybody out there with a good idea, with a new product or service had just as good a chance as anybody else to find an audience on the Internet.

　　You get rid of net neutrality, and all of a sudden all those innovators need the permission of a Verizon or an AT&T or a Time Warner Cable to have their product or service reach an audience. So I really worry that the next Google that is being built out in a garage somewhere today isn't going to get the same chance to build a business, to thrive online that the dominant¹¹ players have, and that this decision will actually lock in the power of those dominant players over consumers.

　　HARI SREENIVASAN:Robert McDowell, what about this idea that the cable company or the person that brings me that Internet, the last mile, they have essentially¹² been thought of as almost the infrastructure¹³ folks, the piping guys? This seems to give them a tremendous amount of gatekeeper possibility and power.

　　ROBERT MCDOWELL:Actually, if a last mile provider were to do what Craig outlines, there are a number of government hammers that would come down on them. That would be sort of a de facto kind of showing of market power and abuse of that power that results in consumer harm.

　　And there are a number of laws that would come down to prevent that from happening or to cure it from happening. But you are absolutely right to point out that actually technology is evolving. And things are converging¹⁴. The concept of the edge, where we have applications and content, is also merging¹⁵ and converging with the so-called core of the Internet, where there are now intelligent networks.

　　And we have unlicensed spectrum¹⁶. We have the wireless broadband market as the fastest growing segment of broadband that we didn't have 10 years ago, when net neutrality first started to become a debate. And so consumers have some choices at their fingertips to help keep the marketplace wonderfully chaotic¹⁷ in a positive and constructive way that I think acts as a counterbalance to any possible incentives¹⁸ for anti-competitive conduct.

　　But if there were anti-competitive conduct, again, there are a lot of laws that can be used to help correct that situation.

　　HARI SREENIVASAN:Craig, what about the idea that the market will take care of it if there is bad behavior?

　　CRAIG AARON: Well, I think the problem is, is that we don't have enough competition.

　　Most Americans have at best two choices for high-speed Internet service at home. Many of them are saddled with just a single choice. When all these companies are saying they're going to block or discriminate¹⁹ or are free to block or discriminate, there is really nowhere else for consumers to turn.

　　So, I think we need a Federal Communications Commission serving in a role of a watchdog, being on the beat, having the authority to step in if necessary. If there aren't any problems, they won't need to step in. But the idea that we should strip away all these protections and be told by these companies that we should just trust them, I don't think they have yet earned that trust.

　　ROBERT MCDOWELL:Can I interject just really quickly?

　　HARI SREENIVASAN:Sure.

　　ROBERT MCDOWELL:Not all of the protections have been stripped away.

　　First of all, the court left in place a new body of law under what is something called Section 706, which is untested. The commission has an avenue there. The commission also has a big avenue. Every time one of these Internet service providers has a transaction before the commission, if they want to buy new spectrum, they want to merge⁷ with anothercompany, there are merger conditions put in place, like Comcast is living under for the next four years.

　　And that can help be a deterrent²⁰. So, those are enforceable. There are a lot of tools and a lot of other tools that we don't have time to enumerate²¹, but there are a lot of protections still in place for consumers, I don't want people to be panicking.

　　CRAIG AARON: Well, I think the most important tool, though, is what the FCC should be doing, which is reasserting its authority under the Communications Act.

　　The sort of dirty secret of this decision is that it didn't come out against net neutrality. It didn't say that was a bad idea or a bad policy. It said the FCC is doing it wrong. And the reason they lack that authority is because they gave it up themselves during the Bush administration. They abdicated²² -- abdicated their own authority.

　　And they now have an opportunity to set that right. We urged Commissioner McDowell and Chairman Genachowski during his term to do just that. They failed to do it. And now we have this legal mess.

　　The cleanest way, the best way would be to restore that authority. And I hope that is what the FCC will do.

　　HARI SREENIVASAN:Robert, briefly²³, what should the FCC do?

　　ROBERT MCDOWELL:Well, I think the FCC should really do an inventory²⁴, work with other agencies to do an inventory of all applicable laws that could be used to protect consumers, but also restate its commitment to what we call the multi-stakeholder nongovernmental model of Internet governance.

　　Part of the problem of what is going on here is, as we bless more state intervention²⁵ into the Internet's affairs, this is giving fuel to regimes across the globe to do the same thing, maybe on an international level. I have an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today about that.

　　HARI SREENIVASAN: OK.

　　ROBERT MCDOWELL: So it's got a lot of collateral²⁶ damage here.

　　HARI SREENIVASAN:All right, Robert McDowell, Craig Aaron, thanks for your time.

　　ROBERT MCDOWELL:Thank you.

　　CRAIG AARON: Thank you.

1 improperly   

不正确地，不适当地

参考例句：

• Of course it was acting improperly. 这样做就是不对嘛！
• He is trying to improperly influence a witness. 他在试图误导证人。

2 remains   

n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹

参考例句：

• He ate the remains of food hungrily.他狼吞虎咽地吃剩余的食物。
• The remains of the meal were fed to the dog.残羹剩饭喂狗了。

3 wireless   

adj.无线的；n.无线电

参考例句：

• There are a lot of wireless links in a radio.收音机里有许多无线电线路。
• Wireless messages tell us that the ship was sinking.无线电报告知我们那艘船正在下沉。

4 commissioner   

n.（政府厅、局、处等部门）专员，长官，委员

参考例句：

• The commissioner has issued a warrant for her arrest.专员发出了对她的逮捕令。
• He was tapped for police commissioner.他被任命为警务处长。

5 interfere   

v.(in)干涉，干预；(with)妨碍，打扰

参考例句：

• If we interfere, it may do more harm than good.如果我们干预的话，可能弊多利少。
• When others interfere in the affair,it always makes troubles. 别人一卷入这一事件，棘手的事情就来了。

6 oversight   

n.勘漏，失察，疏忽

参考例句：

• I consider this a gross oversight on your part.我把这件事看作是你的一大疏忽。
• Your essay was not marked through an oversight on my part.由于我的疏忽你的文章没有打分。

7 merge   

v.(使)结合，(使)合并，(使)合为一体

参考例句：

• I can merge my two small businesses into a large one.我可以将我的两家小商店合并为一家大商行。
• The directors have decided to merge the two small firms together.董事们已决定把这两家小商号归并起来。

8 merger   

n.企业合并，并吞

参考例句：

• Acceptance of the offer is the first step to a merger.对这项提议的赞同是合并的第一步。
• Shareholders will be voting on the merger of the companies.股东们将投票表决公司合并问题。

9 technologically   

ad.技术上地

参考例句：

• Shanghai is a technologically advanced city. 上海是中国的一个技术先进的城市。
• Many senior managers are technologically illiterate. 许多高级经理都对技术知之甚少。

10 constructive   

adj.建设的，建设性的

参考例句：

• We welcome constructive criticism.我们乐意接受有建设性的批评。
• He is beginning to deal with his anger in a constructive way.他开始用建设性的方法处理自己的怒气。

11 dominant   

adj.支配的，统治的；占优势的；显性的；n.主因，要素，主要的人(或物)；显性基因

参考例句：

• The British were formerly dominant in India.英国人从前统治印度。
• She was a dominant figure in the French film industry.她在法国电影界是个举足轻重的人物。

12 essentially   

adv.本质上，实质上，基本上

参考例句：

• Really great men are essentially modest.真正的伟人大都很谦虚。
• She is an essentially selfish person.她本质上是个自私自利的人。

13 infrastructure   

n.下部构造，下部组织，基础结构，基础设施

参考例句：

• We should step up the development of infrastructure for research.加强科学基础设施建设。
• We should strengthen cultural infrastructure and boost various types of popular culture.加强文化基础设施建设，发展各类群众文化。

14 converging   

adj.收敛[缩]的，会聚的，趋同的v.（线条、运动的物体等）会于一点( converge的现在分词 )；（趋于）相似或相同；人或车辆汇集；聚集

参考例句：

• Plants had gradually evolved along diverging and converging pathways. 植物是沿着趋异和趋同两种途径逐渐演化的。 来自辞典例句
• This very slowly converging series was known to Leibniz in 1674. 这个收敛很慢的级数是莱布尼茨在1674年得到的。 来自辞典例句

15 merging   

合并（分类）

参考例句：

• Many companies continued to grow by merging with or buying competing firms. 许多公司通过合并或收买竞争对手的公司而不断扩大。 来自英汉非文学 - 政府文件
• To sequence by repeated splitting and merging. 用反复分开和合并的方法进行的排序。

16 spectrum   

n.谱，光谱，频谱；范围，幅度，系列

参考例句：

• This is a kind of atomic spectrum.这是一种原子光谱。
• We have known much of the constitution of the solar spectrum.关于太阳光谱的构成，我们已了解不少。

17 chaotic   

adj.混沌的，一片混乱的，一团糟的

参考例句：

• Things have been getting chaotic in the office recently.最近办公室的情况越来越乱了。
• The traffic in the city was chaotic.这城市的交通糟透了。

18 incentives   

激励某人做某事的事物( incentive的名词复数 )； 刺激； 诱因； 动机

参考例句：

• tax incentives to encourage savings 鼓励储蓄的税收措施
• Furthermore, subsidies provide incentives only for investments in equipment. 更有甚者，提供津贴仅是为鼓励增添设备的投资。 来自英汉非文学 - 环境法 - 环境法

19 discriminate   

v.区别，辨别，区分；有区别地对待

参考例句：

• You must learn to discriminate between facts and opinions.你必须学会把事实和看法区分出来。
• They can discriminate hundreds of colours.他们能分辨上百种颜色。

20 deterrent   

n.阻碍物，制止物；adj.威慑的，遏制的

参考例句：

• Large fines act as a deterrent to motorists.高额罚款是对开车的人的制约。
• I put a net over my strawberries as a deterrent to the birds.我在草莓上罩了网，免得鸟歇上去。

21 enumerate   

v.列举，计算，枚举，数

参考例句：

• The heroic deeds of the people's soldiers are too numerous to enumerate.人民子弟兵的英雄事迹举不胜举。
• Its applications are too varied to enumerate.它的用途不胜枚举。

22 abdicated   

放弃（职责、权力等）( abdicate的过去式和过去分词 )； 退位，逊位

参考例句：

• He abdicated in favour of his son. 他把王位让给了儿子。
• King Edward Ⅷ abdicated in 1936 to marry a commoner. 国王爱德华八世于1936年退位与一个平民结婚。

23 briefly   

adv.简单地，简短地

参考例句：

• I want to touch briefly on another aspect of the problem.我想简单地谈一下这个问题的另一方面。
• He was kidnapped and briefly detained by a terrorist group.他被一个恐怖组织绑架并短暂拘禁。

24 inventory   

n.详细目录，存货清单

参考例句：

• Some stores inventory their stock once a week.有些商店每周清点存货一次。
• We will need to call on our supplier to get more inventory.我们必须请供应商送来更多存货。

25 intervention   

n.介入，干涉，干预

参考例句：

• The government's intervention in this dispute will not help.政府对这场争论的干预不会起作用。
• Many people felt he would be hostile to the idea of foreign intervention.许多人觉得他会反对外来干预。

26 collateral   

adj.平行的；旁系的；n.担保品

参考例句：

• Many people use personal assets as collateral for small business loans.很多人把个人财产用作小额商业贷款的抵押品。
• Most people here cannot borrow from banks because they lack collateral.由于拿不出东西作为抵押，这里大部分人无法从银行贷款。