奧巴馬總統公開表示支援將網際網路服務重新歸類為公用事業，此舉將使聯邦通訊委員會能夠執行更強有力的法規，保護網路中立性。”奧巴馬今天上午在一份宣告中說：“為了落實這些保護措施，我要求聯邦通訊委員會根據《電信法》第二章對網際網路服務進行重新分類。”用通俗易懂的英語，我要求聯邦通訊委員會（FCC）認識到，對大多數美國人來說，網際網路已經成為日常交流和日常生活中必不可少的一部分。”

這個決定仍由聯邦通訊委員會決定

自從今年早些時候聯邦通訊委員會（FCC）的原始保護措施在法庭上被推翻以來，圍繞保護網路中立性的鬥爭愈演愈烈，這是一個原則，即所有的網際網路流量，不管是什麼流量，從何而來，都應該得到平等對待。這些保護措施之所以能夠被取消，是因為歐盟委員會制定規則的方式並不是它實際擁有的權力，所以它一直在試圖制定新的規則，它肯定能夠執行。到目前為止，它還沒有選擇使用第二篇，但網路中立的倡導者，現在包括奧巴馬總統，一直在推動它的使用。

根據第二篇對網際網路服務進行監管意味著將其重新歸類為公用事業，就像水一樣。這意味著，網際網路供應商將只是透過管道來回傳輸網際網路，而不是真正做出任何關於網際網路走向的決定。在很大程度上，單從服務提供商的角度來看，這是一個有爭議的想法。這意味著他們正在失去對自己銷售產品的控制權，他們無法透過某些服務來為自己的業務帶來好處。相反，提供商將被困在允許消費者隨心所欲地使用網際網路，使用他們喜歡的任何服務而不受任何懲罰的境地。如果這聽起來不錯的話，那是因為網際網路到目前為止基本上就是這樣運作的。

奧巴馬對第二篇重新分類的支援正值網路中立的關鍵時刻。雖然聯邦通訊委員會正在制定新的規則來保護網路中立性，但這些規則實際上會允許網際網路提供商提供所謂的“快車道”，實際上首先會破壞網路中立性的目的。在今年夏天的一次公開評論中，美國人大聲反對這項提議，但目前還不清楚歐盟委員會計劃對此採取什麼樣的回應。聯邦通訊委員會主席湯姆惠勒說，他並不完全反對第二篇，但這似乎是隻有當其他方法無法首先工作。

根據奧巴馬的計劃，Netflix可能會如願以償

奧巴馬在一份概述他希望網際網路服務看起來像什麼的宣告中強調了四個要點：網際網路提供商不被允許遮蔽提供合法內容的網站，他們不被允許根據自己的喜好故意放慢或加快某些網站或服務的速度，而且他們也不能提供付費快車道。奧巴馬還要求美國聯邦通訊委員會（FCC）對康卡斯特（Comcast）和威瑞森（Verizon）等服務提供商與Netflix等內容提供商之間的互聯點進行調查，並可能應用網路中立規則。這對Netflix來說可能是一個巨大的新聞，Netflix一直認為網際網路的這一領域應該全年都被網路中立所覆蓋。

奧巴馬還要求委員會將這些規則應用於移動網際網路服務。這也將是一個重大的變化，因為移動服務以前並沒有像有線連線那樣受到網路中立性規則的約束。這就是說，奧巴馬確實為無線領域的例外情況留下了相當大的空間，有可能允許一定程度的限制，以便提供商在大量使用時能夠管理其網路。值得註意的是，他的提案還要求FCC不要對網際網路服務實施費率規定。

還有一個大問題，聯邦通訊委員會是否會聽取奧巴馬的建議，國會是否真的會允許。奧巴馬對第二章重新分類的支援可能會提供政治上的支援，委員會需要這種支援來證明這種規則的改變是合理的，但由於共和黨人對接管參議院的監管持謹慎態度，這是一個越來越冒險的提議。聯邦通訊委員會可能會制定規則，但國會可以做很多事來左右其決定。參議員特德·克魯茲（TedCruz）已經在推特上說，“網路中立”是奧巴馬對網際網路的醫保；網際網路不應以**的速度執行。”

“我們將把總統的意見記錄在案。”

在奧巴馬宣佈這一訊息後，聯邦通訊委員會（FCC）發表了一份宣告，並沒有真正改變立場——事實上，基本上說，它會把奧巴馬的觀點和其他人的觀點結合起來。”“作為一個獨立的監管機構，我們將把總統的意見納入公開網際網路程式的記錄中，”惠勒主席說我們歡迎對它的評論，以及它提議如何使用《通訊法》第二篇。”

奧巴馬清楚地知道，他沒有在這裡制定政策，但他的宣告向委員會指出，這一政策的改變得到了公眾的大力支援。”FCC是一個獨立的機構，最終決定的是他們自己的一個但是公眾已經評論了近400萬次，要求消費者——而不是有線電視公司——決定他們使用的網站。”

希爾報告說，共和黨人在上週的選舉後已經開始著手對《通訊法》進行全面改革，可能會精簡用於管理電話、電視和網際網路等不同型別服務的規則。這些變化究竟意味著什麼尚不清楚，但據報道，網路中立的倡導者擔心，這可能會走向放鬆對通訊行業的監管。

在宣告中，FCC還證實了一些報道，稱它正在研究採取一種“混合”的方法來實現網路中立性。據信，該委員會的混合計劃將對互聯點實施嚴格的監管，使像Netflix這樣的內容提供商感到高興，同時仍為消費者提供一定程度的快車道。

最終，聯邦通訊委員會只是說它需要更多的時間。雖然它曾希望在年底前出臺網路中立規則，但它顯然發現，目前的計劃並不是人們想要的。它現在說，它需要時間來確定如果採用混合方法或完全的第二篇重新分類，會出現哪些法律障礙。”惠勒寫道：“我們對各種法律選擇的問題研究得越深入，就越明顯有更多的工作要做。”

你可以在下麵閱讀奧巴馬的完整宣告：

An open Internet is essential to the American economy, and increasingly to our very way of life. By lowering the cost of launching a new idea, igniting new political movements, and bringing communities closer together, it has been one of the most significant democratizing influences the world has ever known.

"Net neutrality" has been built into the fabric of the Internet since its creation — but it is also a principle that we cannot take for granted. We cannot allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas. That is why today, I am asking the Federal Communicati*** Commission (FCC) to answer the call of almost 4 million public comments, and implement the strongest possible rules to protect net neutrality.

When I was a candidate for this office, I made clear my commitment to a free and open Internet, and my commitment remains as strong as ever. Four years ago, the FCC tried to implement rules that would protect net neutrality with little to no impact on the telecommunicati*** companies that make important investments in our economy. After the rules were challenged, the court reviewing the rules agreed with the FCC that net neutrality was essential for preserving an environment that encourages new investment in the network, new online services and content, and everything else that makes up the Internet as we now know it. Unfortunately, the court ultimately struck down the rules — not because it disagreed with the need to protect net neutrality, but because it believed the FCC had taken the wrong legal approach.

The FCC is an independent agency, and ultimately this decision is theirs alone. I believe the FCC should create a new set of rules protecting net neutrality and ensuring that neither the cable company nor the phone company will be able to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what you can do or see online. The rules I am asking for are simple, common-sense steps that reflect the Internet you and I use every day, and that some ISPs already observe. These bright-line rules include:

• No blocking. If a c***umer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it. That way, every player — not just those commercially affiliated with an ISP — gets a fair shot at your business.
• No throttling. Nor should ISPs be able to intentionally slow down some content or speed up others — through a process often called "throttling" — based on the type of service or your ISP’s preferences.
• Increased transparency. The connection between c***umers and ISPs — the so-called "last mile" — is not the only place some sites might get special treatment. So, I am also asking the FCC to make full use of the transparency authorities the court recently upheld, and if necessary to apply net neutrality rules to points of interconnection between the ISP and the rest of the Internet.
• No paid prioritization. Simply put: No service should be stuck in a "slow lane" because it does not pay a fee. That kind of gatekeeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the Internet’s growth. So, as I have before, I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect.

If carefully designed, these rules should not create any undue burden for ISPs, and can have clear, monitored excepti*** for reasonable network management and for specialized services such as dedicated, mission-critical networks serving a hospital. But combined, these rules mean everything for preserving the Internet’s openness.

The rules also have to reflect the way people use the Internet today, which increasingly means on a mobile device. I believe the FCC should make these rules fully applicable to mobile broadband as well, while recognizing the special challenges that come with managing wireless networks.

To be current, these rules must also build on the less*** of the past. For almost a century, our law has recognized that companies who connect you to the world have special obligati*** not to exploit the monopoly they enjoy over access in and out of your home or business. That is why a phone call from a customer of one phone company can reliably reach a customer of a different one, and why you will not be penalized solely for calling someone who is using another provider. It is common sense that the same philosophy should guide any service that is based on the tran**ission of information — whether a phone call, or a packet of data.

So the time has come for the FCC to recognize that broadband service is of the same importance and must carry the same obligati*** as so many of the other vital services do. To do that, I believe the FCC should reclassify c***umer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunicati*** Act — while at the same time forbearing from rate regulation and other provisi*** less relevant to broadband services. This is a basic acknowledgment of the services ISPs provide to American homes and businesses, and the straightforward obligati*** necessary to ensure the network works for everyone — not just one or two companies.

Investment in wired and wireless networks has supported jobs and made America the center of a vibrant ecosystem of digital devices, apps, and platforms that fuel growth and expand opportunity. Importantly, network investment remained strong under the previous net neutrality regime, before it was struck down by the court; in fact, the court agreed that protecting net neutrality helps foster more investment and innovation. If the FCC appropriately forbears from the Title II regulati*** that are not needed to implement the principles above — principles that most ISPs have followed for years — it will help ensure new rules are c***istent with incentives for further investment in the infrastructure of the Internet.

The Internet has been one of the greatest gifts our economy — and our society — has ever known. The FCC was chartered to promote competition, innovation, and investment in our networks. In service of that mission, there is no higher calling than protecting an open, accessible, and free Internet. I thank the Commissioners for having served this cause with distinction and integrity, and I respectfully ask them to adopt the policies I have outlined here, to preserve this technology’s promise for today, and future generati*** to come.