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.

What can be learned about AT&T from Paragraph 3?

A
It protects against unfair competition.
B
It engages in anti-competitive practices.
C
It is under the FCC’s investigation.
D
It is in pursuit of quality service.
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]第兰段O句指出,某些宽带运营商会进行反竞争行为,比如AT&T以牺牲Netflix和 Apple TV的利益为代价,偏袒自家流媒体服务。由此可知,AT&T进行了反竞争行为,B正确。 [命题解密]正确项B是对AT&T行为favoring its own video-streaming service at the expense of Netflix...的正确解读,选项中的“anti-competitive practices“体现其性质anti-competitive behavior。 A将②句所述对抗反竞争行为的负责方由"(除FCC之外的)其他部门”歪曲为AT&T,而后者实为受监管对象而非监管方。C错误有二:文中并未直接提及AT&T受到反竞争行为调查;且即便其可能正在接受调查,调查者也并非FCC,而是②句所提及的other agencies。D将AT&T”以竞争对手的利益为代价偏袒自家流媒体服务”这一负面行为歪曲为“追求高质员服务“的正面行为。
创作类型:
原创

本文链接:What can be learned about AT&T from Paragraph 3?

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