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.

Faced with the demand for net neutrality rules, the FCC

A
sticks to an out-of-date order.
B
takes an anti-regulatory stance.
C
has issued a special resolution.
D
has allowed the states to intervene.
使用微信搜索喵呜刷题,轻松应对考试!

答案:

B

解析:

[精准定位]第二段②句指出,FCC于2017年通过了网络中立性方面的最新决议;②②句进一步指出,这份决议废除了原先严苛的网络中立性原则,且规定州政府和地方政府均不得监管宽带运营商。由此可知,FCC如今对网络中立性采取了反监管立场,B正确。 [命题解密]正确项B是对原文eliminated the strict net neutrality rules、state and local governments couldn't regulate broadband providers等信息的高度概括。 A源千第四段②句unhinged from the realities”与现实脱节”,但这是法官对判决结果的解读,而非作者对FCC现行规则的描述。C源于②句a badly needed resolution,但这里指“上诉法院未能就网络中立给出解决办法”,并非“FCC提出了特别解决方案来保证网络中立”。D与②句“FCC不允许州政府监管宽带运营商”相悖。
创作类型:
原创

本文链接:Faced with the demand for net neutrality rules, th

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