互動電視服務的到來在電信與有線電視系統業者的市場爭奪戰之中已被掀起序幕。雖然此時該服務的相關市場以及法規還未成熟，但在異業平臺、同業平臺、甚至業者與消費者之間則潛藏了許多的收視權益及產業規範問題。在此議題下，提供給主管機關數位匯流之後應適用傳統電信或是廣播之管制，或甚至打破此二種分類的管制政策，以謀求在產業發展與社會公益兩間平衡的思考方向。科技或許可以隨著時代的演進而以各種不同的面貌呈現，但最終的立法目標則不然。藉由互動電視服務的實例將可以讓我們再重新檢討過去傳播、電信二元分類下各立法追求目的。在促進競爭、鼓勵創新以及尋求接近(access)最廣泛多元的資訊來源等傳統立法目的當中，何者應該持續的在後匯流環境中扮演重要的角色，將可由互動電視的屬性探討中獲得答案。
就此，本文所要探討的主題可分為兩部分。第一，藉由以往對於電信以及傳播產業二元截然不同的管制態度與立法目的追求中比較互動電視服務，包含隨選視訊等新興服務態樣之本質差異，是否可認為其乃獨立於傳統管制架構下電信、傳播服務以外的第三種服務態樣？其次，本文將以有線電視系統經營者及電信業服務者經營互動電視服務為例，探討是否我們可以將以往有線電視經營之業務只歸有線廣播電視法管制，電信業務由電信法管制的簡單思維，以新的思考方向去作不一樣的區分模式。若然，則在因應匯流時代的整體法律架構方面又應該如何去調整以尋求彼此的一致。

Interactive Television (ITV) is a kind of service that supports subscriber-initiated choices or actions that are related to one or more video programming streams. From the viewpoint of "functional equivalency" approach, ITV services actually combine the essences of broadcasting (includes cable television) and telecommunications. But in Taiwan, the government has still retained the two regulatory schemes for telecom and broadcasting. The regulatory frameworks for these industries remain distinct and separate with telecom governed by the Directorate General of Telecommunications (DGT) and broadcasting by Government Information Office (GIO). So when Chunghua Telecom Co. offers the new service called "MOD" (Multimedia on Demand), it causes many complaints from cable operators, since MOD service is defined by DGT a kind of "telecommunication service", and thus is not bound by the Cable Television Act.
This article is concerned about the regulation of ITV services in Taiwan, from the dispute between Chunghua Telecom Co. and other cable operators, analyzing the nature of ITV services through the essence of traditional Broadcasting Act and Telecommunication Act first. The issue here is whether ITV services are distinct from the classifications identified above and should more appropriately be treated as a hybrid service subject to multiple provisions of the Act. In the next step, the author uses "functional equivalency" approach, trying to build a preliminary regulatory principle of ITV services to accord with the current regulatory frameworks. However, within ITV services, there are still some unique issues that are not involved in the current regulatory frameworks, especially in the issues of competition, must-carry principle and domestic culture protection. Some of these issues may also need the new act to deal with.

In 1997, EU commission had delivered "Green Paper on the Convergence of the Telecommunications, Media and Information Technology Sectors, and the Implications for Regulation" (thereinafter Green Paper). In this Green Paper, there are three regulatory models to adjust (or rebuild) the current regulatory frameworks. Finally, the author examines which the best regulation mode is in the Green Paper as its possible application in Taiwan's emerging ITV services.

壹、中文部分(依日期排列)
一、書籍
1、范建得主編，《電信法制新紀元》，台北：元照 (2003)。
2、陳銘祥，《通信的規範結構與通信變革》，台北：韋伯 (2002)。
3、彭心儀主編，《美國資訊通信法案例評析》，台北：元照 (2002)。
4、劉孔中，《電信管制革新與數位網路產業規範》，台北：太穎投資顧問 (2001)。
5、劉紹樑主持，《電信、資訊及傳播跨業整合監管機構組織之研究》，台北：交通部電信總局，頁2-84以下 (2001).
6、汪琪、鍾蔚文，《第二代媒介傳播革命之後(第二版)》，(2001)。
7、劉孔中、施俊吉主編《管制革新》，中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究所專書(50) (2001)。
8、石世豪，《我國廣播電視體制法治化之研究-概念論、法制論與釋義論之多重探索-》，台北：瑞興 (2000)。
9、林子儀，《言論自由與新聞自由》，台北：元照 (1999)。
10、李靜瑤譯，《億萬商戰 媒體的金權遊戲》，台北：先覺 (1999)。
11、林亦堂，《跨世紀的美國電子傳播事業》，台北：財團法人廣播電視事業發展基金 (1998)。
12、馮建三，《大媒體（貳）：媒體社會運動》，台北：元尊 (1998)。
13、謝奇任、唐維敏、甘尚平譯，《大匯流：整合媒介、資訊與傳播》，台北：亞太 (1997)。
14、劉幼琍，《多頻道電視與觀眾：九０年代的電視媒體與閱聽人收視行為研究》，台北：時英 (1997)。
15、吳宜蓁，《有線電視公益頻道規劃與社區意識的提昇》，台北：中華文化復興運動總會電視文化研究委員會 (1996)。
16、馮建三，《廣電資本運動的政治經濟學 析論1990年代台灣廣電媒體的若干變遷》，台北：唐山 (1995)。
17、李瞻，《電視制度》，台北：三民 (1988)。
二、期刊論文
1、彭心儀，〈論WTO多邊架構下以特定服務部門為基礎之競爭規範：以GATS電信參考文件為核心〉，《政大法學評論》，第76期 (2003.12)。
2、戴豪君，〈從MOD看數位匯流之法律課題〉，《資訊與電腦》，第272期(2003.3)
3、嚴劍琴，〈電信業在數位視訊展現商機〉，《通訊雜誌》，第105期 (2002.10)。
4、江耀國，〈論對寬頻多媒體(MOD)服務的法律管制〉，《律師雜誌9月號》，第276期 (2002.9)。
5、李彥甫，〈數位影音內容一魚多吃〉，《通訊雜誌》，第103期 (2002.8)。
6、施俊吉，〈CATV不對稱管制-鬆綁？緊縮？〉，《通訊雜誌》，第103期 (2002.8)。
7、江耀國、周韻采，〈有線電視與電信產業匯流之法律問題研究〉，《政大法學評論》，第70期 (2002.6)。
8、張慧君，〈互動電視軟體百家爭鳴〉，《數位視訊多媒體月刊》 (2002.3)。
9、彭心儀，〈由資訊通信法制之發展趨勢論數位落差之消弭〉，《經社法制論叢》，第二十九期 (2002.1)。
10、蔡可娟，〈有線電視發展隨選視訊VOD的大未來〉，《廣電人》，第78期 (2001.6)。
11、書密，〈個人化電視的崛起-數位錄影機PVR〉，《廣電人》，第77期 (2001.5)。
12、莊懿妃、劉崇堅，〈電信法之結構管制分析〉，《經社法制論叢》，第23期(1999.7)。
13、石世豪，〈有線電視相關產業之結構管制規範架構〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，第46期，頁36 (1999.3)。
14、何吉森，〈有線廣播電視法評析〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，第46期 (1999.3)。
15、謝穎青、劉志祥，〈NII概念下有線電視與電信事業互跨的另類思考〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，第46期 (1999.3)。
16、陳銘祥，〈電信規範體制之探討〉，《經社法制論叢》，第23期 (1999.1)。
17、劉華美，〈歐洲電視新基調-電視指令暨一九九七年修正指令〉，《經社法制論叢》，第22期 (1998.7)。
18、王國雍，〈互動式電視(Interactive TV)之展望〉，《電腦與通訊》，第38期(1995.4)。
三、研討會論文
1、彭心儀，〈WTO/GATS協定與資訊通信科技：視聽服務貿易自由化下之文化政策爭議〉，發表於台灣大學法學院WTO研究中心主辦之《WTO、科技、與環境研討會》(2003)。
2、戴豪君，〈因應數位匯流資訊通信法制革新之研究〉，發表於清華大學科技法律研究所主辦之《全國資訊通信法律研討會》 (2002)。
3、簡維克、吳俊幟，〈由行政程序法檢視我國電信自由化〉，發表於交通大學科技法律研究所主辦之《全國科技法律研討會》(2001)。
4、石世豪、蔡志宏等，〈4C整合趨勢下有線電視產業競爭規範之研究〉，發表於公平交易委員會主辦之《第六屆競爭政策與公平交易法學術研討會 (2000.11)。
5、蘇蘅，〈公民v. 消費者-媒體近用與普及服務〉，發表於《我國傳播法制跨世紀發展趨勢研討會》(2000)。
6、石世豪，〈從司法院大法官釋字第三六四號解釋論廣播電視自由之客觀法與基本權利雙重性質〉，收錄於《憲法解釋之理論與實務研討會論文集》(1998)。
四、學位論文
1、賴雅芹，台灣地區互動電視產業發展現況之研究，台灣師範大學圖文傳播學系碩士論文 (2002)。
2、陳忠勝，我國無線電視數位化之產業競爭分析研究，交通大學傳播研究所碩士論文 (2002)。
3、陳炳全，有線寬頻網路開放接取之研究：法律與政策分析，元智大學資訊社會學研究所碩士論文 (2002)。
4、王如蘭，迎接寬頻時代的挑戰-論台灣無線電視業者內容加值服務方向，政治大學廣播電視學系碩士論文 (2001)。
5、吳恩文，從美英日互動電視經營發展模式探討台灣互動電視產業之整合面貌及業者競爭策略分析，政治大學企業管理學系碩士論文 (2001)。
6、林培堅，隨選視訊科技之研究：採用與影響，世新大學傳播學系碩士論文(2001)。
7、李椿源，寬頻進接市場形貌變化對我國寬頻網路服務發展影響與競爭策略，政治大學企業管理學系碩士論文 (2000)。
8、李桂芝，電視媒體與數位媒體競合之探討，銘傳大學傳播管理學系碩士論文(2000)。
9、張長樹，樞紐設施之研究，政治大學法律學系碩士論文 (2000)。
10、吳梓生，由市場競爭與科技發展論電信與有線電視跨業經營之法制-以美國為借鏡，台灣大學法律學系碩士論文 (1997)。
貳、英文部分(依日期排列)
一、書籍
1.SHARON K. BLACK, TELECOMMUNICATIONS LAW IN THE INTERNET AGE, 62 (2002).
2.L.J.H.F. GARZANITI, TELECOMMUNICATIONS BROADCASTING AND THE INTERNET: E.U. COMPETITION LAW AND REGULATION (2000).
3.ROBERT W. CRANMDALL & LEONARD WAVERMAN, WHO PAYS FOR UNIVERSAL SERVICE? (2000).
4.BARBARA A. CHERRY, THE CRISIS IN TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER LIABILITY: HISTORICAL REGULATORY FLAWS AND RECOMMENDED REFORM (1999).
5.THOMAS G. KRATTENMAKER, TELECOMMUNICATIONS LAW AND POLICY (1998).
6.DANIEL L. BRENNER, LAW AND REGULATION OF COMMON CARRIER IN THE COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY (1998).
7.Thomas G. Krattenmaker & Lucas A. Powe, Jr., Regulating broadcast programming (1994).
8.ROBERT BRITT HORWITZ, THE IRONY OF REGULATORY REFORM- THE DEREGULATION OF AMERICAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS (1989).
二、期刊論文
1.Shin-yi Peng, Universal Telecommunications Service in China: Trade Liberalization, Subsidy, and Technology in the Making of Information Equality in the Broadband Era, 4 Asian-Pac. L. & Pol’y J. 21 (2003).
2.Alexis Garcia, Finding the Unobstructed Window for Internet Film Viewing, 9 UCLA Ent. L. Rev. 243 (2002).
3.Cristian DeFrancia, Ownership Controls in the New Entertainment Economy: A Search for Direction, 7 Va. J.L. & Tech. 1 (2002).
4.Harvey B. Feigenbaum, Public Policy and the Private Sector in Audiovisual Indurtries, 49 UCLA L. Rev. 1767 (2002).
5.Hernan Galperin, and François Bar, the Regulation of Interactive Television in the United States and the European Union, 55 Fed. Comm. L.J. 61 (2002).
6.James B. Speta, a Common Carrier Approach to Internet Interconnection, 54 Fed. Comm. L.J. 225 (2002).
7.Angeline Lee, Convergence in Telecom, Broadcasting and it: A Comparative Analysis of Regulatory Approaches in Malaysia, Hong Kong and Singapore, 5 Sing. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 674 (2001).
8.John F. Gibbs & Todd G. Hartman, Telecommunications in the 21st century: The Regulation of Convergence Technologies: an argument for Technologically Ssnsitive Regulation, 27 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 2193 (2001).
9.Arlan Gates, Convergence and Competition: Technological Change, Industry Concentration and Competition Policy in the Telecommunications Sector, 58 U.T. Fac. L. Rev. 83 (2000).
10.Antonia M. Apps & Thomas M. Dailey, Non-Regulation of Advanced Internet Services, 8 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 681 (2000).
11.Albert N. Lung, Must-Carry Rules in the Transistion to Digital Television: A Delicate Constitution Balance, 22 Cardozo L. Rev. 151 (2000).
12.Adeno Addis, Who's afraid of foreigners? The restrictions on alien ownership of electronic media, 32 Colum. Human Rights L. Rev. 133 (2000).
13.Harris J. Aaron, I want my MTV: The Debate over Digital Must-Carry, 80 B.U. L. Rev. 885 (2000).
14.Michael A. Geist, IcraveTV and the New Rules of Internet Broadcasting, 23 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 223 (2000).
15.Robert M. Frieden, Universal Service: When Technologies Convergence and Regulatory Models Diverge, 13 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 395 (2000).
16.Richard Wu Wai Sang and Grace Leung Lai Kuen, Media Policy and Regulation in the Age of Convergence -- The Hong Kong Experience, 30 Hong Kong L.J. 454 (2000).
17.Stephen M. Astor, Mergine Lanes on the Information Superhighway: Why the Convergence of Television and the Internet may Revive Decendy Standards, 29 Sw. U. L. Rev. 327 (2000).
18.Thomas W. Hazlett, Digitizing "Must-Carry" Under Turner Broadcasting v. FCC (1997), 8 S. Ct. Econ. Rev. 141, 148 (2000).
19.Paul Smith, the Politics of UK Television Policy: the Introduction of Digital Television, 3 Int'l J. Comm. L. & Pol'y 3 (1999).
20.Jeffrey Lanning, the Economic and Regulatory Issues of Convergence, Symposium: The First Amendment and the Media: Convergence--Necessary, Evil, or Both? The Legal, Economic, and Cultural Impacts of Mega Media Mergers Panel II, 9 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 461, 480-481 (1999).
21.Julie Macedo, Meet the Television of Tomorrow. Don't Expect to Own it Anytime Soon, 6 UCLA Ent. L. Rev. 283 (1999).
22.Carles Llorens-Maluquer, European Responses to Bottlenecks in Digital Pay-TV: Impacts on Pluralism and Competition Policy, 16 Cardozo Arts & Ent LJ 557 (1998).
23.Colin R Blackman, Convergence between telecommunications and other media: How should regulation adapt? Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 22, No.3, pp.163-170 (1998).
24.Paul Nihoul, Competition or regulation for multimedia? , Telecommunications Policy, Vol.22, No. 3, pp. 207-218 (1998).
25.Pierre Larouche, EC competition law and the convergence of the telecommunications and broadcasting sectors, Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp.219-242, (1998).
26.Christine M. Mason, Universal Service in the Schools: One Step Too Far? 50 Fed. Comm. L.J. 237 (1997).
27.David A. L. Levy, The regulation of digital conditional access systems: A case study in European policy making, Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 21, No. 7, pp. 661-676 (1997).
28.Sandrine Cahn & Daniel Schimmel, the Cultural Exception: Does It Exist in GATT and GATS Frameworks? How does it Affect or is it Affected by the Agreement on TRIPS? 15 Cardozo Arts & Ent LJ 281 (1997).
29.Angela J. Campbell, Universal Service Provisions: The Ugly Duckling of the 1996 Act, 29 Conn. L. Rev. 187 (1996).
30.David S. Bogen, the Innkeeper's Tale: The Legal Development of a Public Calling, 1996 Utah L. Rev. 51 (1996).
31.Fred H. Cate, Telephone Companies, the First Amendment, and Technological Convergence, 45 DePaul L. Rev. 1035 (1996).
32.Jerome A. Barron, the Telco, the Common Carrier Model and the First Amendment--the "DIAL-A-PORN" Precedent, 19 Rutgers Computer & Tech. L.J. 371 (1993)
33.Andrea L. Johnson, Redefining diversity in telecommunications: uniform regulatory framework for mass communications, 26 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 87 (1992).
34.Stanley M. Besen & Robert W. Crandall, The Deregulation of Cable Television, 44 Law & Contemp. Probs. 77 (1981).
35.Charles K. Burdick, the Origin of the Peculiar Duties of Public Service Companies, 11 Colum. L. Rev. 514 (1911).
36.Bruce Wyman, the Law of the Public Callings as a Solution of the Trust Problem, 17 Harv. L. Rev. 156 (1904).
三、案例
1.AT&T v. City of Portland, 216 F.3d. 871 (2000)
2.Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. et al. v. FCC, 117 S. Ct. 1174 (1997)
3.Denver Area Educ. Telecomm. Consortium, Inc., v. FCC, 518 U.S. 734 (1996)
4.Wharf Cable Limited v. The Attorney General and Hong Kong Telephone Company Limited, HCMP No 1493 of 1995 (1995).
5.MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 114 S. Ct. 2223 (1994)
6.Sable Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115 (1989)
7.Carlin Communications, Inc. v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph., 827 F.2d 1291 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1029 (1988)
8.United States v. Western Elec. Co., 673 F. Supp. 525, 586 n. 273 (1987)
9.Midwest Video Corp. v. FCC, 440 U.S. 689 (1979)
10.FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978)
11.National Association of Regulatory Utility Commission v. FCC, 533 F. 2d 601 (1976)
12.Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974).
13.National Association of Regulatory Utility Commission v. FCC, 525 F. 2d 630 (1974).
14.Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969).
15.Western Union Tel. Co. v. Call Publishing Co., 181 U.S. 92, 100 (1901)
16.Cook v. Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co., 46 N.W. 1080 (Iowa, 1890)
17.Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. (4 Otto) 113 (1876)
四、官方文件
1.Council Resolution of Interactive media Content in Europe, 14175/02 (2002.11) available at http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/02/st14/14175en2.pdf (last visited Dec. 20, 2002)
2.FCC, In the Matter of Inquiry Concerning High-Speed Access to the Internet Over Cable and Other Facilities, GN Docket No. 00-185, CS Docket No. 02-52 (Mar. 15, 2002).
3.FCC, Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket No. 98-146, Third Report, 00-290 (Feb. 6, 2002).
4.FCC, Memorandum Opinion and Order “In the Matter of Applications for Consent to the Transfer of Control of Licenses and Section 214 Authorizations by Time Warner Inc. and America Online, Inc., Transferors, to AOL Time Warner Inc., Transferee, CS Docket No. 00-30 (2001)
5.FCC, Notice of Inquiry：In the Matter of Nondiscrimination in the Distribution of Interactive Television Services Over Cable, CS Docket No. 01-7 (Jan. 18, 2001).
6.CRTC, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 99-14: New Media (1999).
7.EU, Summary of the results of the public consultation on the green paper on the convergence of the telecommunications, media and information technology sectors; Areas for further reflection, SEC(98) 1284 (Jul. 29, 1998).
8.FCC, Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Report to Congress, 13 FCC Rcd 11501, 11536 (1998).
9.European Commission, Green Paper on the convergence of the telecommunications, media and information technology sectors, and the implications for regulation, COM(97) 623 (Mar. 12, 1997).
10.FCC, Notice: In the Matter of Implementation of Sections 202(a) and 202(b)(1) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Broadcast Radio Ownership) 47 C.F.R. Section 73.3555 ORDER, FCC96-90 (1996).
11.FCC, Implementation of the Non-Accounting Safeguards of Sections 271 and 272 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, 11 F.C.C.R. 21,905, 21,955-56 (1996).
12.CRTC, Exemption Order Respecting Experimental Video-on-Demand Programming Undertakings, Broadcasting Public Notice 1994-118, (Sep. 1994).
13.FCC, Implementation of Sections 11 and 13 of the Cable TV Consumer Protection & Competition Act of 1992, Second Report and Order, 8 F.C.C.R. 8565, 8576-77, 73 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 1401 (1993)
14.FCC, 1985 FCC Fairness Doctrine Report, 102 F.C.C.2d 145 (1985).
15.Pub. L. No. 98-549, 98 Stat. 2779 (1984)
16.H.R. Rep. No. 934, at 43-44 (1984)
17.FCC, Amendment of Section 64.702 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations (Second Computer Inquiry), 77 F.C.C.2d 384, 420 (1980).
18.FCC, In re Citizen’s Complaint Against Pacific Foundation, 56 F.C.C.2d 94, 98 (1975).
五、其他網路資料
1.ITU, “Regulatory Implications of Broadband", Geneva, 2-4 (May. 2001), available at http://www.itu.int/itudoc/itu-t/rec/index.html
2.FCC Mass Media Bureau (now Media Bureau),“THE PUBLIC AND BROADCASTING” (June, 1999). available at http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/decdoc/public_and_broadcasting.html#INTRO (last visited Jan. 10, 2003)
3.ITV Solutions, at http://www.opentv.com/device/solutions/index.html (last visited May. 7, 2003)
4.Tracy Swedlow, Interactive Enhanced Television: A Historical and Critical Perspective, available at http://www.itvt.com/etvwhitepaper-3.html