Appeals court upholds net neutrality rules – why you should care
上诉法院维持网络中立性规则——你为什么应该关心

If you like binge-watching Netflix, streaming audio or online gaming, then you should be celebrating this week. And if your business depends on reaching a wide audience online, you should join in. A federal appeals court decision this week means your internet service provider can’t slow down your access to particular sites, nor let others pay to be in a faster lane of service. It all comes down to the principle called net neutrality.
如果你喜欢在 Netflix 上狂欢观看，流媒体音频或在线游戏，那么你应该庆祝这一周。如果你的业务依赖于在线接触广泛的受众，你也应该参与其中。本周联邦上诉法院的裁决意味着你的互联网服务提供商不能减慢你访问特定网站的速度，也不能让其他人支付以获得更快的服务通道。这一切归结于一个叫做网络中立性的原则。

The court upheld the Obama administration’s net neutrality rules governing companies that deliver internet service to U.S. homes and businesses. At the heart of the case was the Federal Communications Commission’s February 2015 Open Internet Order. It requires that everyone – whether they are individuals, small businesses or large corporations – must have equal access to the whole internet, just like everyone has equal access to the telephone network.
法院支持奥巴马政府关于互联网服务公司提供服务的网络中立性规则。此案的核心是联邦通信委员会 2015 年 2 月发布的开放互联网命令。该命令要求所有人——无论是个人、小企业还是大型公司——都必须平等访问整个互联网，就像每个人都平等访问电话网络一样。

Companies that provide internet service have fought against these rules. In addition to charging people for internet access at home, they hoped to earn even more money by charging content providers for priority “fast lanes” for their traffic. For example, without net neutrality rules, Comcast would be allowed to slow down (or even block) its customers’ traffic coming from Netflix – even though the Netflix viewers had already paid Comcast for internet access. And Comcast could speed things up again if Netflix directly paid Comcast even more money.
提供互联网服务的公司一直在反对这些规则。除了向人们收取家庭互联网接入费外，他们还希望通过向内容提供商收取优先“快车道”费用来赚取更多的钱。例如，如果没有网络中立规则，康卡斯特将被允许减慢（甚至阻止）来自 Netflix 的客户流量——尽管 Netflix 的观众已经向康卡斯特支付了互联网接入费。而如果 Netflix 直接向康卡斯特支付更多的钱，康卡斯特可以再次加快速度。

The rules were created out of concern internet service providers would reserve high-speed internet lanes for content providers who could pay for it, while relegating to slower speeds those that didn’t – or couldn’t, such as libraries, local governments and universities. Net neutrality is also important for innovation, because it protects small and start-up companies’ access to the massive online marketplace of internet users. This week’s D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling establishes a level playing field for online information providers.
这些规则的制定是出于对互联网服务提供商可能为能够支付费用的内容提供商保留高速互联网通道的担忧，同时将无法支付费用的内容提供商（如图书馆、地方政府和大学）降级到较慢的速度。网络中立性对创新也至关重要，因为它保护了小型和初创公司的访问权，使其能够进入庞大的互联网用户在线市场。本周，华盛顿特区巡回上诉法院的裁决为在线信息提供商建立了一个公平的竞争环境。

Internet as a public utility
互联网作为公共事业

The ruling will likely be appealed to the Supreme Court. But it is important because this particular court has previously thrown out past efforts by the FCC to create similar rules governing internet access. In 2014, it found that the FCC lacked the authority to make net-neutrality rules, because it did not yet classify internet service in the same way it did telephone service – as a “utility” worthy of special protections.
该裁决可能会被上诉至最高法院。但这项裁决很重要，因为该法院之前曾驳回 FCC 制定类似互联网接入规则的努力。在 2014 年，法院认为 FCC 没有权力制定网络中立性规则，因为它尚未将互联网服务与电话服务以相同方式分类——作为值得特别保护的“公用事业”。

The FCC reclassified internet service in the 2015 Order as “Title II,” acknowledging that internet service has become a utility, a necessity in daily life. Title II service providers – like phone companies – are not allowed to discriminate in the service they provide. Creating a “fast lane” would amount to discrimination based on the content of the data being transmitted.
FCC 在 2015 年命令中将互联网服务重新分类为“第二条款”，承认互联网服务已成为一种公用事业，是日常生活中的必需品。第二条款服务提供商——如电话公司——不允许在提供的服务中进行歧视。创建“快速通道”将等同于基于传输数据内容的歧视。

Investments and profits  投资与利润

Internet service providers are fighting the rules because they are frustrated that they spend huge amounts of money building and expanding the infrastructure of the internet, which other companies profit from. Some of those companies, such as Netflix, Amazon, Google and Facebook, make significant, even extraordinary, amounts of money.
互联网服务提供商正在反对这些规则，因为他们对自己花费巨额资金建设和扩展互联网基础设施感到沮丧，而其他公司却从中获利。其中一些公司，如 Netflix、Amazon、Google 和 Facebook，赚取了可观甚至非凡的利润。

Net neutrality doesn’t solve this desire of the companies that provide the backbone of internet communications to be rewarded as richly as the companies using it. Internet service providers view this as a fundamental unfairness. They are, after all, handling more and more data every year. But attempting to solve this issue by allowing paid, fast-lane service would remake the web in ways that would punish internet users more than these companies. Fast-lane fees would be passed on to consumers, consumers’ use of vital but noncommercial sites could be comparatively tedious, and internet service providers could advantage content and sites they own.
网络中立性并不能解决提供互联网通信基础设施的公司希望获得与使用这些服务的公司同样丰厚回报的愿望。互联网服务提供商将此视为一种根本的不公平。毕竟，他们每年处理的数据量越来越大。然而，试图通过允许付费快速通道服务来解决这个问题，将以惩罚互联网用户的方式重塑网络，而不是惩罚这些公司。快速通道费用将转嫁给消费者，消费者使用重要但非商业性网站的体验可能会相对繁琐，而互联网服务提供商可能会偏袒他们自己拥有的内容和网站。

Video streaming services are of particular concern to service companies because because video files are so large and take up so much network capacity. A December 2015 report from Canadian networking company Sandvine found that during peak evening hours, streaming audio and video accounted for 70 percent of North American internet downloading activity, up from 35 percent five years earlier.
视频流媒体服务对服务公司尤其令人担忧，因为视频文件非常大，占用了大量的网络带宽。加拿大网络公司 Sandvine 在 2015 年 12 月发布的一份报告显示，在高峰晚间时段，流媒体音频和视频占北美互联网下载活动的 70%，而五年前这一比例仅为 35%。

Net neutrality also doesn’t solve the problem that most Americans do not live in areas served by more than one high-speed internet service, let alone those in rural America who don’t even have one. Customers who dislike the content priorities and policies of their provider can’t change companies, making net neutrality an important preventative measure in this uncompetitive marketplace.
网络中立性也无法解决大多数美国人生活在只有一个高速互联网服务提供商的地区的问题，更不用说那些在美国农村甚至没有互联网服务的人了。对其服务提供商的内容优先级和政策不满的客户无法更换公司，这使得网络中立性在这个缺乏竞争的市场中成为一项重要的预防措施。

In most of the country, those who want or need broadband service must accept the terms and conditions of a single service provider. Now, at least, that company can’t favor certain types of online activity over others, just for the sake of its own profits.
在全国大部分地区，想要或需要宽带服务的人必须接受单一服务提供商的条款和条件。现在，至少该公司不能仅仅为了自身利益而偏袒某些类型的在线活动。