刷题刷出新高度,偷偷领先!偷偷领先!偷偷领先! 关注我们,悄悄成为最优秀的自己!

单选题

From the early days of broadband, advocates for consumers and web-based companies worried that the cable and phone companies selling broadband connections had the power and incentive to favor affiliated websites over their rivals’. That’s why there has been such a strong demand for rules that would prevent broadband providers from picking winners and losers online, preserving the freedom and innovation that have been the lifeblood of the Internet.
Yet that demand has been almost impossible to fill—in part because of pushback from broadband providers, anti-regulatory conservatives and the courts. A federal appeals court weighed in again Tuesday, but instead of providing a badly needed resolution, it only prolonged the fight. At issue before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was the latest take of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on net neutrality, adopted on a party-line vote in 2017. The Republican-penned order not only eliminated the strict net neutrality rules the FCC had adopted when it had a Democratic majority in 2015, but rejected the commission’s authority to require broadband providers to do much of anything. The order also declared that state and local governments couldn’t regulate broadband providers either.
The commission argued that other agencies would protect against anti-competitive behavior, such as a broadband-providing conglomerate like AT&T favoring its own video-streaming service at the expense of Netflix and Apple TV.Yet the FCC also ended the investigations of broadband providers that imposed data caps on their rivals’ streaming services but not their own.
On Tuesday, the appeals court unanimously upheld the 2017 order deregulating broadband providers, citing a Supreme Court ruling from 2005 that upheld a similarly deregulatory move.But Judge Patricia Millett rightly argued in a concurring opinion that “the result is unhinged from the realities of modern broadband service,” and said Congress or the Supreme Court could intervene to “ avoid trapping Internet regulation in technological anachronism.”
In the meantime, the court threw out the FCC’s attempt to block all state rules on net neutrality, while preserving the commission’s power to preempt individual state laws that undermine its order. That means more battles like the one now going on between the Justice Department and California, which enacted a tough net neutrality law in the wake of the FCC’s abdication.
The endless legal battles and back-and-forth at the FCC cry out for Congress to act. It needs to give the commission explicit authority once and for all to bar broadband providers from meddling in the traffic on their network and to create clear rules protecting openness and innovation online.

There has long been concern that broadband providers would

A
bring web-based firms under control.
B
slow down the traffic on their network.
C
show partiality in treating clients.
D
intensify competition with their rivals.
使用微信搜索喵呜刷题,轻松应对考试!

答案:

C

解析:

[精准定位]第一段CD句指出,自打宽带问世初期,消费者权益倡导者就担心宽带运营商会有如下做法:偏袒自己的关联网站而歧视竞争对手的网站,即区别对待客户。②句进一步说明其影响:宽带运营商可以决定网上的赢家和输家。C是对权益倡导者担忧的正确概括。 [命题解密]题干+正确项C正确改写首段②句:has long been概括From the early days of broadband; show partiality in treating clients改写favor affiliated websites over their rivals'。 A利用个别词汇web-based companies及宽带运营商可能做法”歧视某些网站'勹捏造出运营商意欲控制互联网公司,但文中缺乏信息支持。B将宽带运营商令人担忧的做法"偏袒自身关联网站,限制竞争对手网络流址的传输速度“泛化为“降低所有网络流址的传输速度”。D源于②句rivals'一词,但这里指宽带运营商(流扯掌控者)对于对手网站(流拭使用者)的掣肘,并未涉及宽带运营商之间竞争加剧。
创作类型:
原创

本文链接:There has long been concern that broadband provide

版权声明:本站点所有文章除特别声明外,均采用 CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 许可协议。转载请注明文章出处。

让学习像火箭一样快速,微信扫码,获取考试解析、体验刷题服务,开启你的学习加速器!

分享考题
share