网络切片和网络中立性

IF 5.9 2区 管理学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Telecommunications Policy Pub Date : 2023-11-22 DOI:10.1016/j.telpol.2023.102619
Christopher S. Yoo
{"title":"网络切片和网络中立性","authors":"Christopher S. Yoo","doi":"10.1016/j.telpol.2023.102619","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Whether network slicing complies with the net neutrality rules currently in force in Europe and previously applicable in the U.S. presents a key issue in the deployment of 5G. In many ways, both regimes frame the issues in a similar manner, with the exceptions for reasonable traffic management and specialised services likely to play the most important roles. Both regimes also focus on similar considerations, including whether measures are based on technical rather than business considerations and the distinction between measures aimed at improving the performance of the entire network or specific applications, although both distinctions are problematic in some respects. Both regimes also emphasize application agnosticism and end-user choice, with European law finding the former implicit in the latter. At the same time, European and U.S. law reflect some key differences: the regimes cover different types of entities, frame the issues in terms of nondiscrimination versus throttling and paid prioritization, take different positions on whether measures must be limited to temporary or exceptional circumstances, and place different weight on the impact of the rules on investment and on the relevance industry standards. The relatively undeveloped state of both legal regimes means that the ultimate answers must await enforcement decisions and actions by national regulatory authorities, and any subsequent judicial challenges to those decisions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":22290,"journal":{"name":"Telecommunications Policy","volume":"48 2","pages":"Article 102619"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Network slicing and net neutrality\",\"authors\":\"Christopher S. Yoo\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.telpol.2023.102619\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Whether network slicing complies with the net neutrality rules currently in force in Europe and previously applicable in the U.S. presents a key issue in the deployment of 5G. In many ways, both regimes frame the issues in a similar manner, with the exceptions for reasonable traffic management and specialised services likely to play the most important roles. Both regimes also focus on similar considerations, including whether measures are based on technical rather than business considerations and the distinction between measures aimed at improving the performance of the entire network or specific applications, although both distinctions are problematic in some respects. Both regimes also emphasize application agnosticism and end-user choice, with European law finding the former implicit in the latter. At the same time, European and U.S. law reflect some key differences: the regimes cover different types of entities, frame the issues in terms of nondiscrimination versus throttling and paid prioritization, take different positions on whether measures must be limited to temporary or exceptional circumstances, and place different weight on the impact of the rules on investment and on the relevance industry standards. The relatively undeveloped state of both legal regimes means that the ultimate answers must await enforcement decisions and actions by national regulatory authorities, and any subsequent judicial challenges to those decisions.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22290,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Telecommunications Policy\",\"volume\":\"48 2\",\"pages\":\"Article 102619\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Telecommunications Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308596123001301\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Telecommunications Policy","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308596123001301","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

网络切片是否符合目前在欧洲实施、此前在美国适用的网络中立规则,是5G部署的一个关键问题。在许多方面,两种制度都以类似的方式提出问题,除了合理的交通管理和专业服务可能发挥最重要的作用。这两种制度也注重类似的考虑,包括措施是基于技术考虑还是基于业务考虑,以及旨在改善整个网络或具体应用性能的措施之间的区别,尽管这两种区别在某些方面都存在问题。这两种制度都强调应用不可知论和最终用户选择,欧洲法律发现前者隐含在后者中。与此同时,欧洲和美国的法律反映了一些关键的差异:制度涵盖了不同类型的实体,从非歧视与限制和有偿优先的角度来构建问题,对措施是否必须限于临时或特殊情况采取不同的立场,以及对规则对投资和相关行业标准的影响的不同重视。这两种法律制度的相对不发达状态意味着最终的答案必须等待国家管理当局的执法决定和行动,以及随后对这些决定的任何司法挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Network slicing and net neutrality

Whether network slicing complies with the net neutrality rules currently in force in Europe and previously applicable in the U.S. presents a key issue in the deployment of 5G. In many ways, both regimes frame the issues in a similar manner, with the exceptions for reasonable traffic management and specialised services likely to play the most important roles. Both regimes also focus on similar considerations, including whether measures are based on technical rather than business considerations and the distinction between measures aimed at improving the performance of the entire network or specific applications, although both distinctions are problematic in some respects. Both regimes also emphasize application agnosticism and end-user choice, with European law finding the former implicit in the latter. At the same time, European and U.S. law reflect some key differences: the regimes cover different types of entities, frame the issues in terms of nondiscrimination versus throttling and paid prioritization, take different positions on whether measures must be limited to temporary or exceptional circumstances, and place different weight on the impact of the rules on investment and on the relevance industry standards. The relatively undeveloped state of both legal regimes means that the ultimate answers must await enforcement decisions and actions by national regulatory authorities, and any subsequent judicial challenges to those decisions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Telecommunications Policy
Telecommunications Policy 工程技术-电信学
CiteScore
10.80
自引率
12.50%
发文量
122
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: Telecommunications Policy is concerned with the impact of digitalization in the economy and society. The journal is multidisciplinary, encompassing conceptual, theoretical and empirical studies, quantitative as well as qualitative. The scope includes policy, regulation, and governance; big data, artificial intelligence and data science; new and traditional sectors encompassing new media and the platform economy; management, entrepreneurship, innovation and use. Contributions may explore these topics at national, regional and international levels, including issues confronting both developed and developing countries. The papers accepted by the journal meet high standards of analytical rigor and policy relevance.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Does affordable Internet promote maternal and child healthcare access? Evidence from a post-telecommunication market disruption period in India Digital discrimination under disparate impact: A legal and economic analysis Willingness to pay for broadband: A case study of Wisconsin Why do users perceive digital platforms as indispensable to their lives?: A study on KakaoTalk in Korea
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1