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 does the author argue in the last paragraph?

A
Congress needs to take action to ensure net neutrality.
B
The FCC should be put under strict supervision.
C
Rules need to be set to diversify online services.
D
Broadband providers’ rights should be protected.
使用微信搜索喵呜刷题,轻松应对考试!

答案:

A

解析:

本题旨在考查末段的段落主旨,首句总结事件“法律之争没完没了,FCC反复无常”并概述建议”FCC内外部问题不断,亟需国会介人"。②句细述两条建议:国会需赋权FCC以确保网络监管/中立得以实施,并制定相关法规以确保网络的开放性和创新性。A符合上述建议,故正确。 正确项A是对末段...cry out for Congress to act、to give... to bar... to create clear rules protecting openness and innovation online所述建议的合理概括。 B、D均与末段②句“国会需直截了当授权FCC禁止宽带运营商干预网络流攸“不符,B将应受到严格监管的对象从“宽带运营商“偷换为“FCC",D则将权利受到保护的对象从“FCC“偷换为“宽带运营商'。C将②句“需制定明确法规来保护网络的开放性和创新性(... protecting openness and innovation online)“曲解为"需制定法规以确保线上服务的多样化(... to diversify online services)",而线上服务多样化是保陓网络开放与创新的结果之一,其本身不足以体现制定法规的目的。 了 本题考查末段主旨/作者核心建议,因此完全可以从全文高度出发解题:首段介绍对网络中立性的需求由来已久,第二、=gt指出网络中立性无法实施并聚焦监管部门FCC的不合理政策,第四、五段分析上诉法院有关网络中立的最新判决的不足,第六段进而对国会提出建议。由此可知,作者自始至终都在关注网络中立性/网络公平与开放,而选项中体现这一点的只有A;再将其与原文信息比对,即可发现选项内容与“国会应当赋权FCC,禁止宽带运营商干预网络流拭/保证网络中立性”相符,由此初步判断A正确;最后排除张冠李戴的B、D及原文并未明确提到的C便可最终锁定答案A。
创作类型:
原创

本文链接:What does the author argue in the last paragraph?

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