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.
1. There has long been concern that broadband providers would ________.
2. Faced with the demand for net neutrality rules, the FCC ________.
3. What can be learned about AT&T from Paragraph 3?
4. Judge Patricia Millett argues that the appeals court’s decision ________.
5. What does the author argue in the last paragraph?
问题1选项
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
问题2选项
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
问题3选项
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.
问题4选项
A.focuses on trivialities
B.conveys an ambiguous message
C.is at odds with its earlier rulings
D.is out of touch with reality
问题5选项
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.
第1题:C
第2题:B
第3题:B
第4题:D
第5题:A
第1题:
【整体分析】
来源:Los Angeles Times(《洛杉矶时报》)于2019年10月2日刊登的文章Is net neutrality alive or dead? It’s hard to tell(网络中立是生存还是灭亡?尚无定论)。
主题:文章讨论了正在进行的网络中立性的斗争,人们要求制定规则,防止宽带供应商偏袒附属网站。尽管需求强烈,但由于宽带供应商和反监管保守派的反击,这些规则的实施一直很困难。作者通过介绍上诉法院的裁决结果,呼吁国会采取行动解决这一问题。
结构:
【试题解析】
【选项释义】
There has long been concern that broadband providers would ________. 长期以来,人们一直担心,宽带供应商会________。
A. bring web-based firms under control A. 使基于网络的公司受到控制
B. slow down the traffic on their network B. 减慢其网络流量速度
C. show partiality in treating clients C. 在对待客户方面表现出偏袒的态度
D. intensify competition with their rivals D. 加剧与对手的竞争
【考查点】事实细节题。
【解题思路】根据题干关键词long been concern可以定位到文章第一段第一句“从宽带出现之初,消费者和互联网公司权益倡导者就担心(worried),出售宽带连接的有线电视和电话公司有能力和动机偏袒自己的附属网站,而挤压竞争对手的网站(favor affiliated websites over their rivals’)”,说明人们一直担心的是宽带供应商会差别对待其客户。因此C选项“在对待客户方面表现出偏袒的态度”正确。
【干扰项排除】
A选项“使基于网络的公司受到控制”,B选项“减慢其网络流量速度”和D选项“加剧与对手的竞争”在文中均没有提及,属于无中生有。
第2题:
【选项释义】
Faced with the demand for net neutrality rules, the FCC ________. 面对网络中立性规则的要求,联邦通信委员会________。
A. sticks to an out-of-date order A. 坚守一个过时的命令
B. takes an anti-regulatory stance B. 采取反监管的立场
C. has issued a special resolution C. 发布了一项专门的解决方案
D. has allowed the states to intervene D. 允许各州进行干预
【考查点】推理判断题。
【解题思路】根据题干关键词FCC可以定位到文章第二段第三、四句“美国哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院面临的问题是联邦通信委员会(FCC)在2017年的一次党派投票中对网络中立性给出的最新意见。共和党人签署的命令不仅推翻了联邦通信委员会在2015年民主党占主导地位时采取的严格的网络中立规则(eliminated the strict net neutrality rules),而且否定了委员会对宽带供应商发号施令的权力(rejected the commission’s authority to require broadband providers to do much of anything)”,说明联邦通信委员会在2015年采取的严格的网络中立规则,到了2017年共和党人签署的命令推翻了网络中立规则,由此可以推断联邦通信委员会的立场发生了变化,现在是反对监管的。因此B选项“采取反监管的立场”正确。
【干扰项排除】
A选项“坚守一个过时的命令”,由eliminated the strict net neutrality rules the FCC had adopted when it had a Democratic majority in 2015(推翻了联邦通信委员会在2015年民主党占主导地位时采取的严格的网络中立规则)没有坚守过去的命令,属于反向干扰;
C选项“发布了一项专门的解决方案”,由A federal appeals court weighed in again Tuesday, but instead of providing a badly needed resolution(联邦上诉法院周二再次介入,但其没有提供迫切需要的解决方案)可知,文中说的是上诉法院没有提供解决方案,而不是联邦通信委员会发布了解决方案,属于偷换概念;
D选项“允许各州进行干预”,由The order also declared that state and local governments couldn’t regulate broadband providers either.(该命令还宣布,联邦和地方政府也不能监管宽带供应商。)可知,联邦通信委员会不允许各州进行干预,属于反向干扰。
第3题:
【选项释义】
What can be learned about AT&T from Paragraph 3? 从第三段可以了解到关于AT&T的什么?
A. It protects against unfair competition. A. 它可以防范不公平竞争。
B. It engages in anti-competitive practices. B. 它参与了反竞争行为。
C. It is under the FCC’S investigation. C. 它正在接受联邦通信委员会的调查。
D. It is in pursuit of quality service. D. 它在追求高质量的服务。
【考查点】事实细节题。
【解题思路】根据题干关键词AT&T可以定位到文章第三段第一句“该委员会认为,其他机构将防范反竞争行为,比如美国电话电报公司(AT&T)这样的宽带供应企业集团,以牺牲Netflix和Apple TV的利益为代价(at the expense of Netflix and Apple TV),使自己的视频流媒体服务获利(favoring its own video-streaming service)”,说明美国电话电报公司的做法属于反竞争行为。因此B选项“它参与了反竞争行为。”正确。
【干扰项排除】
A选项“它可以防范不公平竞争。”,由other agencies would protect against anti-competitive behavior(其他机构将防范反竞争行为)可知,防范不公平竞争的是其他机构,而不是AT&T,属于张冠李戴;
C选项“它正在接受联邦通信委员会的调查。”,由the FCC also ended the investigations of broadband providers(联邦通信委员会也结束了对一些宽带供应商的调查)可知,联邦通信委员会是结束了对其他供应商的调查,而不是AT&T正在接受调查,属于偷换概念;
D选项“它在追求高质量的服务。”在文中没有提及,属于无中生有。
第4题:
【选项释义】
Judge Patricia Millett argues that the appeals court’s decision ________. 帕特里夏·米莱特法官认为,上诉法院的裁决________。
A. focuses on trivialities A. 侧重于细枝末节
B. conveys an ambiguous message B. 传达了一个含糊不清的信息
C. is at odds with its earlier rulings C. 与之前的裁决不一致
D. is out of touch with reality D. 与现实脱节
【考查点】事实细节题。
【解题思路】根据题干关键词Judge Patricia Millett可以定位到文章第四段第二句“但帕特里夏·米莱特法官在协同意见书中给出了充分的理由说明‘结果与现代宽带服务的现实脱节(is unhinged from the realities)’”,说明帕特里夏·米莱特法官认为裁决是与现实脱节的。因此D选项“与现实脱节”正确。
【干扰项排除】
A选项“侧重于细枝末节”和B选项“传达了一个含糊不清的信息”在文中没有提及,属于无中生有;
C选项“与之前的裁决不一致”,由the appeals court unanimously upheld the 2017 order deregulating broadband providers, citing a Supreme Court ruling from 2005 that upheld a similarly deregulatory move(上诉法院援引了最高法院2005年的一项支持类似撤销管制的裁决,一致表决维持2017年的命令,撤销对宽带供应商的管制)可知,上诉法院的裁决和之前是一致的,属于反向干扰。
第5题:
【选项释义】
What does the author argue in the last paragraph? 作者在最后一段中论述了什么?
A. Congress needs to take action to ensure net neutrality. A. 国会需要采取行动以确保网络中立性。
B. The FCC should be put under strict supervision. B. 联邦通信委员会应该被置于严格的监督之下。
C. Rules need to be set to diversify online services. C. 需要制定规则以使在线服务多样化。
D. Broadband providers’ rights should be protected. D. 宽带供应商的权利应该得到保护。
【考查点】推理判断题。
【解题思路】根据题干关键词the last paragraph可以定位到文章最后一段,本段第一句说到“迫切需要国会采取行动(cry out for Congress to act)”,接着第二句介绍了具体需要采取的行动是“禁止宽带供应商干预其网络流量(bar broadband providers from meddling in the traffic on their network)”,即保证网络中立性。因此A选项“国会需要采取行动以确保网络中立性。”正确。
【干扰项排除】
B选项“联邦通信委员会应该被置于严格的监督之下。”在文中没有提及,属于无中生有;
C选项“需要制定规则以使在线服务多样化。”,由create clear rules protecting openness and innovation online(制定明确的规则保护线上的开放和创新)可知,制定规则的目的是保护开放性和创新性,而不是使在线服务多样化,属于偷换概念;
D选项“宽带供应商的权利应该得到保护。”,由bar broadband providers from meddling in the traffic on their network(禁止宽带供应商干预其网络流量)可知,作者认为应该限制供应商的某些权利,而不是保护其权利,属于反向干扰。
【重点词汇】
broadband /ˈbrɔːdbænd/ n. 宽带连接
incentive /ɪnˈsentɪv/ n. 激励;刺激;鼓励
affiliated /əˈfɪlieɪtɪd/ adj. 隶属的
rival /ˈraɪvl/ n. 竞争对手
lifeblood /ˈlaɪfblʌd/ n. 命脉;生命线
pushback /ˈpʊʃbæk/ n. 回推;抗拒
conservative /kənˈsɜːvətɪv/ n. 保守者;因循守旧者
neutrality /njuːˈtræləti/ n. 中立;中立状态
conglomerate /kənˈɡlɒmərət/ n. 联合大公司;企业集团
unanimously /juˈnænɪməsli/ adv. 全体一致地
anachronism /əˈnækrənɪzəm/ n. 过时的人(或风俗、思想)
preempt /priːˈɛmpt/ v. 预先制止
abdication /ˌæbdɪˈkeɪʃn/ n. 辞职;退位
meddle /ˈmedl/ v. 干涉;干预
weigh in 加入比赛;参加辩论
at issue 争议中的;讨论中的
protect against 防范;使免受
concurring opinion 协同意见书
be unhinged from 从……脱离
back-and-forth 反复地;来回地
once and for all 一劳永逸地;彻底地
【长难句分析】
1. 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’.
【结构分析】
【补充分析】
① From the early days of broadband是时间状语,表示倡导者从宽带出现之初就开始担心;
② selling broadband connections是现在分词作后置定语,修饰the cable and phone companies,表示出售宽带连接的有线电视和电话公司;
③ to favor affiliated websites over their rivals’是动词不定式作后置定语,修饰the power and incentive,表示偏袒自己的网站,挤压对手网站的能力和动机。
【参考译文】从宽带出现之初,消费者和互联网公司权益倡导者就担心,出售宽带连接的有线电视和电话公司有能力和动机偏袒自己的附属网站,而挤压竞争对手的网站。
2. 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.
【结构分析】
【补充分析】
① the FCC had adopted是省略了that的定语从句,修饰the strict net neutrality rules,表示联邦通信委员会采取的严格的网络中立规则;
② to require broadband providers to do much of anything是后置定语,修饰authority,表示对宽带供应商发号施令的权力。
【参考译文】共和党人签署的命令不仅推翻了联邦通信委员会在2015年民主党占主导地位时采取的严格的网络中立规则,而且否定了委员会对宽带供应商发号施令的权力。
【全文翻译】
从宽带出现之初,消费者和互联网公司权益倡导者就担心,出售宽带连接的有线电视和电话公司有能力和动机偏袒自己的附属网站,而挤压竞争对手的网站。这就是为什么人们如此强烈地要求制定规则,防止宽带供应商挑选在线业务的赢家和输家,保护自由和创新,这些是互联网一直以来的命脉。
然而,由于宽带供应商、反监管保守派和法院的抵制,这一需求几乎不可能得到满足。联邦上诉法院周二再次介入,但其没有提供迫切需要的解决方案,只是延长了这场斗争。美国哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院面临的问题是联邦通信委员会(FCC)在2017年的一次党派投票中对网络中立性给出的最新意见。共和党人签署的命令不仅推翻了联邦通信委员会在2015年民主党占主导地位时采取的严格的网络中立规则,而且否定了委员会对宽带供应商发号施令的权力。该命令还宣布,联邦和地方政府也不能监管宽带供应商。
该委员会认为,其他机构将防范反竞争行为,比如美国电话电报公司这样的宽带供应企业集团,以牺牲Netflix和Apple TV的利益为代价,使自己的视频流媒体服务获利。然而,联邦通信委员会也结束了对一些宽带供应商的调查,这些供应商对竞争对手的流媒体服务设置了数据上限,但对自己的服务没有限制。
周二,上诉法院援引了最高法院2005年的一项支持类似撤销管制的裁决,一致表决维持2017年的命令,撤销对宽带供应商的管制。但帕特里夏·米莱特法官在协同意见书中给出了充分的理由说明“结果与现代宽带服务的现实脱节”,并表示国会或最高法院可以进行干预,以“避免让互联网监管陷入技术过时的困境”。
与此同时,该法院否决了联邦通信委员会阻碍所有州制定网络中立性规定的尝试,同时维持了委员会预先制止破坏其命令的个别州法律的权力。这意味着更多的斗争,就像现在司法部和加利福尼亚州之间的斗争一样,在联邦通信委员会不再履行职责后,加利福尼亚州颁布了一项严格的网络中立法。
美国联邦通信委员会无休止的法律斗争和反反复复,迫切需要国会采取行动。国会需要一次性赋予委员会明确的权力,禁止宽带供应商干预其网络流量,并制定明确的规则保护线上的开放和创新。