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.

网络切片是否符合目前在欧洲生效以及之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，这两种制度都以类似的方式解决问题，但合理的交通管理和专业服务可能发挥最重要的作用。这两种制度也都侧重于类似的考虑，包括措施是否基于技术而非商业考虑，以及旨在提高整个网络性能或特定应用程序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。这两种制度还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，欧洲和美国的法律也反映出一些关键差异：这些制度涵盖不同类型的实体，从非歧视与限制和付费优先顺序的角度界定问题，对于措施是否必须仅限于临时或特殊情况采取不同的立场，并对规则对投资和相关行业标准的影响给予不同的重视。这两种法律制度都相对不发达，这意味着最终的答案必须等待国家监管机构的执法决定和行动，以及随后对这些决定的任何司法挑战。