我國的電信市場自1987年起開始逐漸邁向自由化，迄今已完成行動通信、衛星通信、固定通信等多項電信業務之開放，在2001年7月開放語音轉售業務(International Simple Release)及2002年2月完成第三代行動通信業務執照之釋出工作後，我國電信市場開放之程度已與國際電信市場發展趨勢同步。我國亦於2002年1月1日成為世界貿易組織(WTO)會員。 鑑於無線寬頻接取業務(Wireless Broadband Access Service)是全球積極研發的重點產業，我國政府為求與世界接軌，亦積極投入此一電信業務行列。國家通訊傳播委員會(NCC)為配合行政院所裁定推動的行動台灣產業政策，將政策轉化為法律，於2007年3月30日依據電信法第14條第6項之授權，發布「無線寬頻接取業務管理規則」，作為開放2.5-2.69GHz頻段提供無線寬頻接取服務之法規基礎。無線寬頻接取業務於2007年辦理執照競標，共發行6張分區特許執照，執照期限為6年。 本論文將檢視因配合政府產業政策所制定與第四代行動通訊系統有著密切關係的「無線寬頻接取業務管理規則」，是否符合我國電信法與其他國際組織所揭櫫的「技術中立」的基本精神與管制規範，以及因不合適的規範所造成在實務面上對法規與管制之影響。 關鍵字 ：無線寬頻接取、技術中立、電信法、國際標準規範。 / Liberalization of telecommunications market in Taiwan has been proceeded progressively since 1987. So far the restrictions on mobile communication, satellite communication, and fixed-network communication have all been relaxed. After the liberalization of ISR (International Simple Release) business in July 2001 and the release of the third generation mobile communication licenses in February 2002, Taiwan’s telecommunications market has become as open as all the other developed countries. In addition, Taiwan became a member of WTO on January 1st, 2002. In light of the importance of wireless broadband access services from a global perspective, Taiwan government has been actively devoting to the development of wireless broadband access to secure an early mover advantage. Given the fact that wireless broadband access is an integral part of Executive Yuan’s industry policy and the implementation demands appropriate regulations, National Communications Commission (NCC) released “Regulations on Wireless Broadband Access (WBA) Services” on March 30th, 2007 based on paragraph 6, article 14 of “Telecom Act”, which forms the legal framework for the release of 2.5-2.69GHz spectrums exclusively for the provisioning of wireless broadband access services. The licenses of wireless broadband access services were auctioned in 2007. The total number of licenses (regional) is six and the duration of permits is six years. As unbiased treatment is the core value, when international standard organizations are dealing with emerging technologies. This dissertation inspects the technical neutrality of “Regulations on WBA Services” which is induced by a government industry policy and highly relevant to the 4th generation mobile communication systems. The criteria includes the conformance of Telecom Act with the essence and standards of other international standard organizations as well as the impact on the implementation due to improper regulations from both the regulation and legal perspectives.

The right to private and family life and the right to the protection of personal data are two fundamental rights of the EU. The protection of these rights is addressed in the new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the Directive on Privacy and Electronic Communications (ePrivacyDirective) and the upcoming new Regulation on Privacy and Electronic Communications (draft ePrivacy Regulation). In this thesis these three legal acts are evaluated in light of profiling through ultrasound tracking technology. Their technology neutrality and their functioning as safeguards of the two fundamental rights against the use of profiling through ultrasound tracking technology is tested. The GDPR is found to differentiate between profiling in the context of automatic decision-making and profiling in other contexts. The process of profiling is described in general terms. It is shown how tracking technologies in general and ultrasound tracking technology in particular have a central role in the profiling process.It is found that ultrasound tracking technology enables far wider tracking and data collection than the other tracking technologies. Differences and similarities between ultrasound tracking technology and other tracking technologies are described. According to the findings, the three legal instruments, the GDPR, the ePrivacy Directive and the draft ePrivacy Regulation, all live up to their aim of technology neutrality on theoretical level, since profiling through ultrasound tracking technology is within the material scope of all of them. An exemption is Article 8(2) of the draft ePrivacy Regulation that, unlike Article 9 of the ePrivacyDirective, does not stretch to cover location tracking through ultrasound technology. However, as will be shown, there are risks related to the practical implementation of these legal frameworks.